Want to second this one and add my understanding of how we get scripture (like the bible. Note, this is no LDS doctrine like much else of what I've said.)
First, God communicates with the spirit of the Prophet/writer directly (with some exceptions like Judges.) This communication is perfect.
The imperfect Prophet now has to interpret and comprehend the perfect message he just received. Because he's a Prophet, God helps him, but this is the first level of corruption scripture receives. How they understand things is now included in the message.
Now he has to formulate these ideas into his his imperfect and limited languages, complete with its symbolism and the culture tied to it. Add corruption.
He has to write it. By hand. More corruption is added.
It is copied by scribes, not all of whom are careful, and some are motivated by things other than forwarding the message. More corruption.
If the message is now filtered by a minister, preacher missionary or some guy on the interwebs (me.) there is another layer of corruption of their convictions and beliefs.
It is now read by you, and/or interpreted by you. Adding the final level of corruption. If you stop here you're pretty much boned, as there is too much haze to get a perfect image of what was sent. You get an image but not a perfect one.
If you don't seek communion with/understanding from God you'll never get the intent of the message as you should. All the static will cloud your understanding.
If The Bible, Book of Mormon, Torah, Quran, and all the other books my 4:00am brain is unable to think of were created and received by this method then they are very imperfect vessels for a perfect message to an imperfect creature.
[/ramble] [/wild speculation]
I think there's a problem with this analysis, because it treats the human prophet as nothing but a corrupter of the message.
I understand the logic of it, but to me it only partially makes sense. If there is nothing but corruption that comes from the inspired human than there is no coherent reason for God to employ prophets at all. An omni God can simply copy and paste the perfect message into every human mind. Each mind will corrupt it personally, but it's given to everyone, and corrections can be issued when and if people mess up.
It seems to me that even if an inspiration is perfect, the process of making it manifest adds a humanity and a human communication to it that gives other people a way to grasp hold of it and use it.
There's an event in the Journey to the West (a Buddhist allegory, I've extolled many times). At the end of the Journey the monk Tripitaka who has come physically from China to India (and allegorically from Samsara to Nirvana) to receive sutras (Buddhist holy teachings) is given a bundle of blank scrolls. These are the perfect teachings. They are formless and deep and anyone capable of reading them will achieve enlightenment. But almost no one could read those scrolls. So, instead, he is given the inferior form of written scrolls.
The teachings brought back are flawed in that they are not the perfect source message, but they have the advantage of relating more easily to the audience. They bring the flawed message across, out of which people might be able to find their way.
This works pretty well. If one accepts the idea that there is some good to be found within the human manifestation, within the writings. The prophet as author brings their life and skills and attitudes good and bad to bear on the problem of manifesting this divine revelation. The result is an imperfect, but comprehensible revelation that may help and guide a number of people.
The resulting work has the benefits of one human helping another, but the drawbacks of the person's prejudices and attitudes.
Personal religious caveat: As I've said many times, I regard this is as part of the process of human thought. I think that there is a part of the human mind that produces inchoate understanding, out of which we form coherent ways of action. These ways need to fit our lives, so we tailor them with our experiences and biases.
