Do you find it ironic that we’re teaching the D&C by topic, instead of chronologically? Are we back to looking at the D&C institutionally instead of chronologically as a church?

Another contextual point, referring to your item #4 above:

“The point is something like Paul’s in Second Corinthians: the weakness of the servants makes it clear that the gospel delivered is not theirs, but God’s.”

This nicely sets up Section 67, which is recorded just after Section 1 in History of the Church, where some folks had been complaining about language used in the revelations, and thought they could do it better. They apparently saw the weakness of a messenger (Joseph, in this case) but learned that the revelations were the Lord’s, not Joseph’s. From HC, volume 1 pg 226:

The Folly of William E. M’Lellin.

After the foregoing was received, William E. M’Lellin, as the wisest man, in his own estimation, having more learning than sense, endeavored to write a commandment like unto one of the least of the Lord’s, but failed; it was an awful responsibility to write in the name of the Lord. The Elders and all present that witnessed this vain attempt of a man to imitate the language of Jesus Christ, renewed their faith in the fulness of the Gospel, and in the truth of the commandments and revelations which the Lord had given to the Church through my instrumentality; and the Elders signified a willingness to bear testimony of their truth to all the world. Accordingly I received the following:

The testimony of the witnesses to the book of the Lord’s commandments, which He gave to His Church through Joseph Smith, Jun., who was appointed by the voice of the Church for this purpose; we therefore feel willing to bear testimony to all the world of mankind, to every creature upon the face of all the earth and upon the islands of the sea, that the Lord has borne record to our souls, through the Holy Ghost, shed forth upon us, that these commandments were given by inspiration of God, and are profitable for all men, and are verily true. We give this testimony unto the world, the Lord being our helper; and it is through the grace of God, the Father, and His Son, Jesus Christ, that we are permitted to have this privilege of bearing this testimony unto the world, that the children of men may be profited thereby.

“having more learning than sense”… :)

What’s initially surprising about the general interpretive approach you seem to be suggesting that it gives a kind of fluidity and indefiniteness to scripture. That is, rather than revealing principles that are “immovable” and “determinate,” it seems you are suggesting that scripture is something much vaguer and more indefinite—perhaps a kind of calling that is, in its essence, without content (though not without structure, which is tantamount, I think, to saying the scriptures reveal types and structural principles/commandments rather than specific commandments…?).

I’ve been chewing on this way of thinking for a while now, so I think I see its radical potential for making the scriptures really come alive—but I’d really like help trying to digest the implications of all of this. So, I hope we can generate some discussion here. It’s hard for me to believe that others are going to buy these ideas without some sort of a fight or counter-argument, and because I’m already largely on board regarding this general interpretive direction, I’m most interested here in trying to hash out how such a move can be discussed in the Church (i.e., without invoking explicitly Badiouian terminology—if, by the way, you see other thinkers influencing your approach here in particular ways, I’d be interested in hearing how you see yourself drawing upon them, though this discussion is probably more appropriate at lds-herm…).

Finally, let me say that I think one way to make this initially-jarring way of thinking about things (i.e., the word only a fixed structure, not content), is to appeal to marital covenants: we covenant to love and serve each other, through thick and thin, but all of these words have unknown content at the time of making the covenant. Life subsequent to the act/event of covenanting, then, is what determines the content of these words and makes the initial “merely structural” covenants meaningful and fleshed out, so-to-speak.