Judas Blood Atoned By Peter?

[DragonLancer]

In another thread that is now locked JLHPROF stated:

 

This is also evidenced in Joseph Smith stating that Judas did not commit suicide, but was actually killed by Peter under blood atonement to pay with his own blood for his own sin against Christ after receiving this higher ordinance.

 

 

Please provide a reference.  That doesn't sound quite right.  That sounds too Brigham-Young-era.  I have doubts Joseph Smith himself ever taught Blood Atonement.

[DragonLancer]

Nevermind about the source.  I found it in the Reed Peck Manuscript after I googled it.

 

"Joseph Smith in a Short speech Sanctioned what had been Said by Rigdon though said he I don't want the brethren to act unlawfully but will tell them one thing Judas was a traitor and instead of hanging himself was hung by Peter, and with this hint the subject was dropped for the day having created a great excitement and prepared the people to execute anything that should be proposed."

 

However, even if Judas was "executed" by Peter (i.e. capital punishment), there is no reason to believe that this was for the purpose of Blood Atonement, as if Judas could pay the price for his own sin.

 

Other prophets in history killed people to execute them when they were deserving of it (for example, Samuel, Elijah, David, etc.), but I believe that the notion of Blood Atonement is peculiar to Brigham Young.  There is no reason to read into any of this the idea that being executed would pay for a person's sin.

[Bobbieaware]

Nevermind about the source. I found it in the Reed Peck Manuscript after I googled it.

"Joseph Smith in a Short speech Sanctioned what had been Said by Rigdon though said he I don't want the brethren to act unlawfully but will tell them one thing Judas was a traitor and instead of hanging himself was hung by Peter, and with this hint the subject was dropped for the day having created a great excitement and prepared the people to execute anything that should be proposed."

However, even if Judas was "executed" by Peter (i.e. capital punishment), there is no reason to believe that this was for the purpose of Blood Atonement, as if Judas could pay the price for his own sin.

Other prophets in history killed people to execute them when they were deserving of it (for example, Samuel, Elijah, David, etc.), but I believe that the notion of Blood Atonement is peculiar to Brigham Young. There is no reason to read into any of this the idea that being executed would pay for a person's sin.

Considering the fact that on the very same night Peter denied knowing and being a disciple of the Lord no less than three times (three separate acts drawing nigh unto betrayal) it would seem Peter would have to be an incredibly ignorant and self-righteous man for him to have the presence of mind to seek out and take the life of Judas. Anything's possible, but it would seem Peter's self-esteem would have been so shattered by his own three acts of faithlessness that it would have been unlikely he would have ever thought to seek out and come down on Judas like a ton of bricks.

Edited August 3, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[The Nehor]

Well at least he took to heart the Savior's admonition that to live by the sword is to die by the sword. He used rope.

As a practical concern hanging an unwilling person is difficult. It can be done but usually requires more then one person.

[Guest]

In another thread that is now locked JLHPROF stated:

 

 

Please provide a reference.  That doesn't sound quite right.  That sounds too Brigham-Young-era.  I have doubts Joseph Smith himself ever taught Blood Atonement.

Let's keep with canonized scripture concerning his death...their may be two versions, but both point toward him taking his life by his own hand.

[DragonLancer]

Considering the fact that on the very same night Peter denied knowing and being a disciple of the Lord no less than three times (three separate acts drawing nigh unto betrayal) it would seem Peter would have to be an incredibly ignorant and self-righteous man for him to have the presence of mind to seek out and take the life of Judas. Anything's possible, but it would seem Peter's self-esteem would have been so shattered by his own three acts of faithlessness that it would have been unlikely he would have ever thought to seek out and come down on Judas like a ton of bricks.

 

Actually, that brings up another can of worms about Peter.  Spencer W. Kimball said that Peter was commanded by the Savior to deny him, rather than doing it out of fear.  I'll see if I can find the source on that one now.

[DragonLancer]

Let's keep with canonized scripture concerning his death...their may be two versions, but both point toward him taking his life by his own hand.

 

As Brigham Young said about the creation account of Adam and Eve, sometimes there are reasons to doubt the literalness of scripture.

[DragonLancer]

Here is one source, but I thought there was another where Spencer W. Kimball more emphatically suggested that it was a command from the Savior.  I'll have to find that other one.  But this is what I have found for now:

 

Years ago President Spencer W. Kimball invited us to reevaluate our understanding of Peter's actions in a magnificent address entitled Peter, My Brother. Speaking of his model and mentor, this modern-day apostle asked penetrating questions: Do we really know Peter's mind and heart? Are we sure of his motives? Do we understand the circumstances of Peter's denial as well as we think we do? President Kimball began his discussion with this admission:

Some time ago a newspaper in a distant town carried an Easter Sunday religious editorial by a minister who stated that the presiding authority of the early-day church fell because of self-confidence, indecision, evil companions, failure to pray, lack of humility, and fear of man....

As I read this, I had some strange emotions. I was shocked, then I was chilled, then my blood changed its temperature and began to boil. I felt I was attacked viciously, for Peter was my brother, my colleague, my example, my prophet, and God's anointed. I whispered [53] to myself, "That is not true. He is maligning my brother ." (Peter, My Brother, 488)

President Kimball discussed the tremendous strength, power, faithfulness, and other apostolic attributes of Peter, including his boldness. Then he said:

Much of the criticism of Simon Peter is centered in his denial of his acquaintance with the Master. This has been labeled "cowardice." Are we sure of his motive in that recorded denial? He had already given up his occupation and placed all worldly goods on the altar for the cause....

Is it conceivable that the omniscient Lord would give all these powers and keys to one who was a failure or unworthy?…

If Peter was frightened in the court when he denied his association with the Lord, how brave he was hours earlier when he drew his sword against an overpowering enemy, the night mob. Later defying the people and state and church officials, he boldly charged, "Him [the Christ] … ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain ." (Acts 2:23.) To the astounded populace at the healing of the cripple at the Gate Beautiful, he exclaimed, "Ye men of Israel … the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate. … ye denied the Holy One.... And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised up from the dead; whereof we are witnesses ." (Acts 3:12–15.)

Does this portray cowardice? Quite a bold assertion for a timid one. Remember that Peter never denied the [54] divinity of Christ. He only denied his association or acquaintance with the Christ, which is quite a different matter....

Is it possible that there might have been some other reason for Peter's triple denial? Could he have felt that circumstances justified expediency? When he bore a strong testimony in Caesarea Philippi, he had been told that "they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ ." (Mt 16:20.) (Peter, My Brother, 488–89)

To what, then, might we attribute Peter's denial? Perhaps it could be attributed to Jesus himself—to a request or command he made that Peter should deny knowing him, not to deny his divinity but to deny knowing him as the religious rebel the Jewish leaders saw him to be. Why? To ensure Peter's safety as chief apostle and to ensure the continuity and safety of the Quorum of the Twelve.

 

Some may object that God would never command any of his children to do such a thing, but we do not know all that God knows, nor do we know all that went on in this situation. Moreover, we find interesting contradictions, or seeming contradictions, in other scriptural passages that put this episode in a different light. For example, God commanded Abraham that his wife, Sarah, should tell the Egyptians that she was Abraham's sister so that he would be protected, just as Jesus wanted the apostles protected (Abr 2:23–25). (

http://emp.byui.edu/marrottr/211FOLDER/Peters%20Denial.htm)

 

[bluebell]

If it was murder it would call into question the rest of the scriptural narrative where Judas is a shameful of the act and attempts to give the money back.  

[Coreyb]

Nevermind about the source.  I found it in the Reed Peck Manuscript after I googled it.

 

"Joseph Smith in a Short speech Sanctioned what had been Said by Rigdon though said he I don't want the brethren to act unlawfully but will tell them one thing Judas was a traitor and instead of hanging himself was hung by Peter, and with this hint the subject was dropped for the day having created a great excitement and prepared the people to execute anything that should be proposed."

 

However, even if Judas was "executed" by Peter (i.e. capital punishment), there is no reason to believe that this was for the purpose of Blood Atonement, as if Judas could pay the price for his own sin.

 

Other prophets in history killed people to execute them when they were deserving of it (for example, Samuel, Elijah, David, etc.), but I believe that the notion of Blood Atonement is peculiar to Brigham Young.  There is no reason to read into any of this the idea that being executed would pay for a person's sin.

HC has a quote attributed to Joseph wherein he favors spilling a criminals blood upon the ground rather than hanging so that the smoke could ascend to God. Not sure how reliable the quote is as it is HC, maybe someone knows? Its HC v. 5 p. 296 in a debate w/ George A. Smith

Edited August 3, 2015 by Coreyb

[theplains]

Actually, that brings up another can of worms about Peter.  Spencer W. Kimball said that Peter was commanded by the Savior to deny him, rather than doing it out of fear.  I'll see if I can find the source on that one now.

 

We may have to revise a teaching from Gospel Principles - "The Lord will never allow the President

of the Church to lead us astray."

 

Regards,

Jim

[DragonLancer]

If it was murder it would call into question the rest of the scriptural narrative where Judas is a shameful of the act and attempts to give the money back.  

 

Maybe.  Maybe not.  There could be more complexities behind that as well.  What we could be reading is an "official" story that was used to tell the story from a certain perspective that left out unnecessary details.  Or at least, some of the details could have been on a "need to know" basis, so they were left out of the scriptural account.

[ERayR]

We may have to revise a teaching from Gospel Principles - "The Lord will never allow the President

of the Church to lead us astray."

 

Regards,

Jim

 

Why

[DragonLancer]

We may have to revise a teaching from Gospel Principles - "The Lord will never allow the President

of the Church to lead us astray."

 

Regards,

Jim

 

Not really, because revelation is suited to the circumstances.  And there is no reason to assume that anyone is "led astray" by special revelation to suit a certain circumstance.  Certainly, Nephi is a person that was called upon in a circumstance to take the life of another, and "capitally punish" him in the process, and had special revelation to do it.

Edited August 3, 2015 by DragonLancer

[Bobbieaware]

We may have to revise a teaching from Gospel Principles - "The Lord will never allow the President

of the Church to lead us astray."

 

Regards,

Jim

Peter could not and did not rise up to the full majesty and righteous integrity his office until he received the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost. Until that day, he was not sufficiently empowered by the Spirit to,lead the Church as the Lord's chief earthly representative. He may have held the office, but he and the disciples were waiting on the Lord until the day of Pentecost before the Church could move forward. In Mormonism, the Spirit is everything, and without its in dwelling presence we are taught that we not even supposed to teach, let alone lead.

I'm always surprised how LDS critics immediately jump on some idea that seems to put the Church teachings in a negative light without first critically thinking that idea through to see if it has any real validity and merit. I guess it's an example of the " throw anything and everything up against the wall"approach, in the hope that at least something might stick.

[theplains]

Peter could not and did not rise up to the full majesty and righteous integrity his office until he received the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost. Until that day, he was not sufficiently empowered by the Spirit to,lead the Church as the Lord's chief earthly representative. He may have held the office, but he and the disciples were waiting on the Lord until the day of Pentecost before the Church could move forward. In Mormonism, the Spirit is everything, and without its in dwelling presence we are taught that we not even supposed to teach, let alone lead.

I'm always surprised how LDS critics immediately jump on some idea that seems to put the Church teachings in a negative light without first critically thinking that idea through to see if it has any real validity and merit. I guess it's an example of the " throw anything and everything up against the wall"approach, in the hope that at least something might stick.

 

My comment was in regards to former President Kimball's teaching about Peter being commanded by

Jesus to deny Him to protect him. If false, he [Kimball] led people astray.

 

As far as Peter is concerned, the New Testament (when read as a whole) does not regard Peter

as the Lord's chief representative on earth. In fact, Paul put himself on par (Galatians 2:8, Romans

11:13).  When Paul spoke of the apostles who are honored as the pillars of the faith, he listed

James first, then Peter and John (Galatians 2:9), and places himself among them (2 Corinthians

11:5), comparing himself to Peter.  The New Testament Church did not have a First Presidency

but I understand the LDS Church does.

 

Regards,

Jim

[bluebell]

Maybe.  Maybe not.  There could be more complexities behind that as well.  What we could be reading is an "official" story that was used to tell the story from a certain perspective that left out unnecessary details.  Or at least, some of the details could have been on a "need to know" basis, so they were left out of the scriptural account.

 

One then has to wonder, why would the real story be 'need to know'?  

[Calm]

We may have to revise a teaching from Gospel Principles...

Are you LDS? I can't remember for sure, but thought you weren't given your other posts. Is that why you used the "we" here? If not, why did you use it? Edited August 3, 2015 by calmoriah

[Bobbieaware]

My comment was in regards to former President Kimball's teaching about Peter being commanded by

Jesus to deny Him to protect him. If false, he [Kimball] led people astray.

As far as Peter is concerned, the New Testament (when read as a whole) does not regard Peter

as the Lord's chief representative on earth. In fact, Paul put himself on par (Galatians 2:8, Romans

11:13). When Paul spoke of the apostles who are honored as the pillars of the faith, he listed

James first, then Peter and John (Galatians 2:9), and places himself among them (2 Corinthians

11:5), comparing himself to Peter. The New Testament Church did not have a First Presidency

but I understand the LDS Church does.

Regards,

Jim

Google "Spencer W Kimbal, Peter my Brother, Scott Woodward" and read Scott Woodward's posting of the original address. Nowhere in the address does Apostle Kimball (that's right, I said "Apostle Kimball" because he wasn't the President of the Church at the time) and you'll see he never comes to any certain conclusions about Peter's denial, and even suggests it could very well be Peter denied the Lord out of fear. But then he goes on to say that if he did, he learned from his mistake and never denied the Lord again. Why did you not check to see if Elder Kimball was actually the President of the Church at the time of the address? President Joseph Fielding Smith was the President at the time and he was followed by President Harold B. Lee.

Edited August 3, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[MDalby]

Here is one source, but I thought there was another where Spencer W. Kimball more emphatically suggested that it was a command from the Savior.  I'll have to find that other one.  But this is what I have found for now:

 

 

Later, after Jesus’s arrest and appearance at trial, Peter, accused of knowing Jesus and being one of His confidants, denies that accusation not once but three times. We don’t know all that was going on here, nor do we know of protective counsel which the Savior may have given to His Apostles privately, but we do know Jesus was aware that even these precious ones would not stand with Him in the end, and He had warned Peter accordingly (see Mark 14:27–31). Then, with the crowing of the ****, “the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord. … And [he] went out, and wept bitterly” (Luke 22:61–62). 

(Jeffrey R. Holland, “None Were With Him,” Ensign, May 2009, p.86–88)

[Stone holm]

Brigham Young once said that he responded to a participant in the Mountain Meadows Massacre who had been the subject of the mass pardon, but was expressing remorse and grief of the participation, that the remedy for that was "A rope around the neck taking with a quick jerk". But the idea of Peter murdering Judas, somehow doesn't ring true. There is also the speculation that Judas was actually trying to protect Jesus not get Him slain. I guess I would stay with the canonized version without pretty convincing proof otherwise.

[DragonLancer]

Google "Spencer W Kimbal, Peter my Brother, Scott Woodward" and read Scott Woodward's posting of the original address. Nowhere in the address does Apostle Kimball (that's right, I said "Apostle Kimball" because he wasn't the President of the Church at the time) and you'll see he never comes to any certain conclusions about Peter's denial, and even suggests it could very well be Peter denied the Lord out of fear. But then he goes on to say that if he did, he learned from his mistake and never denied the Lord again. Why did you not check to see if Elder Kimball was actually the President of the Church at the time of the address? President Joseph Fielding Smith was the President at the time and he was followed by President Harold B. Lee.

 

My point is not whether he was "Apostle" or even the president of the Church at the time, because my bringing it up was not an appeal to his authority.  Nor was it an appeal to this being fact.  It was about the fact that it was a suggestion that I believe is a strong possibility.  And it makes sense to me and happens to be my personal belief that Peter was commanded by the Lord to deny him three times.  This was not about stating this as a fact, or using Spencer Kimball as the authority to prove it as fact at all.  I was stating that Spencer Kimball seems to be the origin of the theory.

Edited August 3, 2015 by DragonLancer

[DragonLancer]

 

Later, after Jesus’s arrest and appearance at trial, Peter, accused of knowing Jesus and being one of His confidants, denies that accusation not once but three times. We don’t know all that was going on here, nor do we know of protective counsel which the Savior may have given to His Apostles privately, but we do know Jesus was aware that even these precious ones would not stand with Him in the end, and He had warned Peter accordingly (see Mark 14:27–31). Then, with the crowing of the ****, “the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord. … And [he] went out, and wept bitterly” (Luke 22:61–62). 

(Jeffrey R. Holland, “None Were With Him,” Ensign, May 2009, p.86–88)

 

 

Very nice.  Another source that acknowledges the possibility.

[DragonLancer]

Brigham Young once said that he responded to a participant in the Mountain Meadows Massacre who had been the subject of the mass pardon, but was expressing remorse and grief of the participation, that the remedy for that was "A rope around the neck taking with a quick jerk". But the idea of Peter murdering Judas, somehow doesn't ring true. There is also the speculation that Judas was actually trying to protect Jesus not get Him slain. I guess I would stay with the canonized version without pretty convincing proof otherwise.

 

It may ring true to other people even if it doesn't to you.  Murder is not the word I would use to describe it.  I would never describe Nephi as a murderer.  Nor would I describe Samuel as a murderer when he personally killed the king of a Canaanite tribe when the children of Israel didn't do it and should have, etc.  And it is no more surprising that Peter would have done this than Nephi.

 

To me, it makes absolutely no sense that Judas' guts spilled out on their own after he hung himself.  That only makes sense if he was disemboweled, and sounds a lot like a something similar to seppuku/hara-kiri ("hairy carey").

Edited August 3, 2015 by DragonLancer

[The Nehor]

Judas killed himself but the Passover meal was not sitting well and the intestinal distress caused a rather severe bowel evacuation.