As much as I enjoy reverting these POV and speculative edits every day... 
"Smith seems to have assumed"
"productive line of reasoning"
"no such attempt has ever been uncovered"
"Further, although Smith claimed to be a prophet and said that God had revealed to him the Golden Plates"
"Finally, Smith did not explain why he believed different translations of a text should not be different from one another or why a fraudulent version with different handwriting would not be obvious."
This is not a place for "John Foxe's three top arguments against the Book of Mormon in reference to the lost 116 pages. Your speculation on "what smith seems to have assumed" is absolutely inappropriate. Also, judging the evidence as "productive" or not is not within the purposes of Wikipedia. State facts and let people come to their own value judgments. "no such attempt has ever been uncovered," well according to Smith's story the manuscript would surface after he retranslated, but since he did not retranslate the Book of Lehi, bringing up the manuscript again wouldn't prove anything, and wouldn't make any sense. While this statement is true, it's difficult to source and it's misleading to the reader (implying a contradiction which may or may not exist). "although Smith claimed to be a prophet..." I'm embarrassed I have to point out the POV in this... the "although... however" structure isn't appropriate on Wikipedia, it advances the POV of the second clause and implies contradiction (as does the word "claim"). "Smith did not explain why he believed different translations of a text should not... etc." Who's to say that Smith believes this? This is your interpretation (and an unreasonable one at that) and certainly Smith doesn't have to answer for his beliefs that you somehow know he had (although we have absolutely no evidence supporting this supposed belief). This is verging on vandalism/ownership...