any one know the whole story of D&C 7?

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

My thoughts exactly. D&C 7 is a real curiosity. Does anybody know if any Church scholars or leaders have tried to take this on?

There is an article by John Claybaugh in the October 1999 Ensign that implicitly states the "official position":

http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOr...av=1#footnote8

MW is correct about the U&T translation - whether they either saw or possessed the parchment is unclear. The article also claims that John appeared in the Kirtland Temple.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by pelagius

Creekster, this is what the Doctrine & Covenants new testament manual says about the section:




P.S.

Yes, I agree with CHC's reading of John 21 (not that I have a solution and 3 Nephi 28:6-7 only makes it messier in terms of reconciling that reading as Mormons).

I guess it depends on what is meant by "death"

Originally Posted by 3 Nephi 28:8

And ye shall never endure the pains of death; but when I shall come in my glory ye shall be changed in the twinkling of an eye from mortality to immortality; and then shall ye be blessed in the kingdom of my Father.

[pelagius]

Okay, here is my two cents. Suppose the D&C and the Book of Mormon said nothing about the death of John or John at all. Doesn't it seem like the most natural reading of John 21:22-24 is that rumors had spread that Jesus had promised John that he would not die, but then in fact John did die? This was problematic (because of the rumors or misreading or mis-remembering of what Jesus said) so the Johannine community inserted a narrative comment (into their community's gospel) pointing out that Jesus never really said that John would never die and consequently it is not a big deal that John is now dead?

That's basically how I read the passage without regard to the D&C and Book of Mormon (this is also what I think CHC was pointing out as well so hopefully I didn't misrepresent him by agreeing with him). However, I do agree that the D&C and Book of Mormon passages contradict what I perceive as the natural reading of John 21:22-24. Thus it strikes me that the interpretations given by Tex, Indy, and others are good and appropriate attempts to harmonize the three sources while favoring the modern sources. I think that makes sense for most Mormons given that the "standard" hermeneutic privileges the Book of Mormon and D&C sources.

[Chapel-Hill-Coug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I'm having a hard time seeing how you can interpret it that way.

Almost everyone interprets it this way. Even the info from the D&C manual suggested a tension, though of course it sees section 7 as a resolution to disparate traditions.

[Chapel-Hill-Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

how does this suggest John died?

Because the rumor is corrected by the author. The rumor that John wouldn't die. Not only this, but if you read the end of John 20, and then analyze the transition, style, grammar, person, of chapter 21, it is clear that this chapter is an addendum by the community ("we"), how much later than the body of the gospel we do not know.

All I'm giving here is the standard interpretation of this passage. The observation that Jesus didn't say John wouldn't die is introduced with the adversative conjunction *de*, which suggests the notion: "BUT, Jesus didn't really say he wouldn't die." This suggests a correction to waht people were saying (the rumor that went out). Why would they say this unless John, who probably did outlive the other disciples, had died?

As for the notion that they were saying John *would* die, but not until the second coming. That's a nice try but it is alien to John, which is completely de-eschatologized due to the delay of the parousia. I'm quite sure that's not what the authors are saying.