Since our first week or real discussion has at last definitely calmed down, I’ll attempt at last to summarize things. I’ll see if I can’t encapsulate them in more or less isolable points.
(1) The major interpretive difficulty associated with the first seven (or really: nine) verses of 2 Nephi 26 turns on the presence in the text of what appear to be quotations of or allusions to the words of Malachi. The contours of the discussion eventually resulted in a picture something like the following. Given explicit references in 1 Nephi 22, Nephi and Malachi appear—historically speaking—to have shared a source text. At the same time, though, one should be careful not therefore to fall into an overly rigid conceptualization of authorship (or, what is the same, subjectivity), a point undergirded by both the difficulty of assessing questions of authorship with regard to Malachi and the intertextual complexity of Nephi’s record.
(2) 2 Nephi 26-27 should not be divorced from either its structural or its thematic context. As regards the former (the structural context), there seems to be some consensus that these chapters form an integral part of the third of four parts that make up Nephi’s (two-volume) record, a part associated at least in the broadest outlines with the Isaianic (but always, in Nephi, more-than-Isaianic) theme of covenantal reconciliation. As regards the latter (the thematic context), the entirety of Nephi’s (again: two-volume) record must be understood as having drawn quite heavily on the Israelite exodus and its covenantal overtones.
(3) Nephite reading, which seems here (always?) to be a rewriting, appears to be structured by three elements: a still-future event, a past vision (of the still-future event), and a text (written in the past) to be read/rewritten in the present (in anticipation of the still-future event). Whatever will be worked out about this very diagrammatic model, its name seems already to have been announced: “faithful anachronism.”
(4) Central to this text, but as yet not even taking any discernible shape, is a connection between the theme of the corporeal (whether in destruction or in preservation) and the theme of the written (again: whether in destruction or in preservation).