D&C128:
 21 And again, the voice of God in the chamber of old Father Whitmer, in Fayette, Seneca county, and at sundry times, and in divers places through all the travels and tribulations of this Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints! And the voice of Michael, the archangel; the voice of Gabriel, and of Raphael, and of divers angels, from Michael or Adam down to the present time, all declaring their dispensation, their rights, their keys, their honors, their majesty and glory, and the power of their priesthood; giving line upon line, precept upon precept; here a little, and there a little; giving us consolation by holding forth that which is to come, confirming our hope!

The angel Raphael, as well as many other angels, appears in John Milton’s Paradise Lost, in which he is sent by God to re-warn Adam concerning eating the forbidden fruit. He also tells him about the war in heaven and the fall of Lucifer. Raphael is also mentioned in the Book of Tobit and the Book of Enoch.

Joseph Smith wrote in Times and Seasons, Sept. 1, 1842, in reference to Abraham, “the book of Jasher, which has not been disproved as a bad author, says he was cast into the fire of the Chaldeans”.

1842 is the year Joseph Smith referred to the book of Jasher and the year he wrote about the angel Raphael (from the book of Enoch) in D&C, showing that he was aware of the apocryphal books by that time.

“The complete work [of the Book of Abraham] was first published serially in the Latter Day Saint movement newspaper Times and Seasons in 1842.” Facsimile No. 1 and Chapter 1 through chapter 2 verse 18 in Volume III, No. 9, dated March 1st, 1842; Facsimile No. 2 and chapter 2 verses 19 through chapter 5 in Volume III, No. 10, dated March 15th, 1842; Facsimile No. 3 in Vol. III, No.14, dated May 16th, 1842. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Abraham

I can’t find Pres Kimball talking about Judas, so it appears I am misremembering Pres Kimball’s quote. It seems that Pres Kimball was taking issue with the portrayal of Peter as weak. His talk can be found here.

Briefly, here’s some of the points Pres Kimball makes in regards to Peter.

(1) Matthew 16:21 Jesus tells the disciples that he will be killed. In verse 22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. 23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

So, Jesus is telling Peter that Jesus is supposed to die, despite Peter’s objections. It’s all part of the plan of Jesus.

(2) When Judas betrays Jesus in the Garden, Peter lifts up a sword and cuts off the ear of a high priest’s servant (Matt. 26:47). Jesus again rebukes Peter, telling him that “they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Note Jesus reaction to Judas. It is hard to tell if he is sarcastic, or welcoming in verse 50, “And Jesus said unto him, Friend, wherefore art thou come?” Is Judas a Friend here–why does Jesus not clearly condemn Judas here? In fact, Jesus never condemns Judas, does he?

(3) President Kimball concludes with

“Could it be that in these last hours Peter realized that he should stop protecting his Lord, that the crucifixion was inevitable, and that regardless of all his acts, the Lord was moving toward his destiny? I do not know. I only know that this apostle was brave and fearless.

Events followed each other in rapid succession. At Gethsemane Peter was futilely trying to defend his Lord one hour; in the next he was following the mob. Apparently the Savior was voluntarily suffering men to heap monumental indignities upon him. What should Peter do?

He boldly and meaningfully postulated to the Savior, “Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended.” (Matthew 26:33.) To which the Lord replied, “This night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.” (Matthew 26:34.)

This was a critical moment. Peter’s act of protection with his sword-slashing had been after this prediction was made. He had tried. He had seen one apostle betray his Master with a kiss, and his Master had not repulsed him. Peter had been reminded that angels could be summoned if protection was needed; he had been commanded to put away his sword. Even now he did not desert his Master but followed sorrowfully behind the jeering crowd. He would remain to the end. He likely heard every accusation, saw every indignity heaped upon his Lord, felt all the injustice of the mock trial, and noted the perfidy of false witnesses perjuring their souls. He saw them foully expectorate in the face of the Holy One; he saw them buffet, strike, slap, and taunt him. He observed the Lord making no resistance, calling for no protective legions of angels, asking for no mercy. What was Peter to think now?

His Denial

A smart aleck damsel accused Peter, “Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee.” (Matthew 26:69.) What would his further defense of the Lord accomplish in this situation? Would it displease Jesus? Would it only destroy Peter himself without beneficial effect? Would Christ want him to fight now, when he had denied him that privilege earlier that evening?

Then another maid announced to the bystanders and villains, “This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth.” (Matthew 26:71.) Peter replied, “I do not know the man.” (Matthew 26:72.) And others, recognizing his Galilean accent, declared, “Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech bewrayeth thee.” (Matthew 26:73.)

What was he to do? Could he do more? What would have been the result had he admitted his connection? Would he have lived to preside over the church? Peter had seen the Savior escape from crowds many times and hide from assassins. Is it conceivable that Peter also saw advisable advantage to the cause in his denial? Had Peter come to fully realize the hidden meaning in the oft-repeated phrase “Mine hour is not yet come” (John 2:4), and did he now understand that “now is the Son of man glorified” (John 13:31)?

I do not pretend to know what Peter’s mental reactions were nor what compelled him to say what he did that terrible night. But in light of his proven bravery, courage, great devotion, and limitless love for the Master, could we not give him the benefit of the doubt and at least forgive him as his Savior seems to have done so fully. Almost immediately Christ elevated him to the highest position in his church and endowed him with the complete keys of that kingdom.

Simon Barjona did not have long to consider the matter or change his decisions, for he now heard the cock crow twice and was reminded of Christ’s prediction. He was humbled to the dust. Hearing the bird’s announcement of the dawn reminded him not only that he had denied the Lord but also that all the Lord had said would be fulfilled, even to the crucifixion. He went out and wept bitterly. Were his tears for personal repentance only, or were they mingled with sorrowful tears in realization of the fate of his Lord and Master and his own great loss?

Only hours passed until he was among the first at the tomb as the head of the group of believers. Only weeks passed until he was assembling the saints and organizing them into a compact, strong, and unified community. It was not long before he was languishing in prison, being beaten, abused, and “sifted as wheat” as Christ had predicted. (See Luke 22:31.)

Now, I’m sure you don’t hold my opinions in high esteem, but as we look at the scene where Jesus says someone will betray him, why didn’t the tempestuous Peter stand up and try to stop Judas when Jesus dipped his sop? Could it be that Peter also understood that Jesus was commanding Judas to betray him? After all, in Matt 16, Jesus already said he would die, and rebuked Peter for disagreeing. It seems that Jesus had a plan. According to Pres Kimball, it seems that Peter was to quit defending Jesus. Could it be that Judas was called to betray him “to fulfill all righteousness” (quoting Nephi.) After all, Jesus did not need to be baptized for the remission of sins–yet he did it anyway. Perhaps Judas needed to betray Jesus to fulfill all righteousness. Perhaps Peter needed to deny Christ to fulfill all righteousness.

Certainly Pres Kimball’s portrayal of Peter is different from all other portrayals of Peter. Everyone talks of Peter’s weakness, yet Pres Kimball tells of Peter’s strength and courage at this critical moment.

About your Gravatar, is that you or is that the dude from “The Office”? I’m still on vacation and am using my cell phone and the picture is too small to tell for sure.

Well for me, a lot depends on who’s doing the extrapolating. I also may not read their extrapolations in the same way as you.