The mitigation of Judas Iscariot

The commonly accepted view of Judas is derived from a simplistic reading of the New Testament: Judas is innately sinister; a son of perdition guilty of the most heinous crime known to mankind. The inception of this condemning perspective roots back even before the middle ages, when his character was villianized to an absurd level through the exaggeration of fabricated fables. Though it did eventually become historically correct, the skepticism continued through the centuries. Still today, the common Christian view of Judas is condemning at best. The LDS religion is no exception in their perception of his guilt - even THE FRIEND reviles him! With such a widespread, "blatantly obvious" denouncement of his name, one would think the denigration was sound. The problem however, is that the unmitigated guilt of Judas is neither blatantly obvious nor sound. There are a number of questions concerning this issue that are often ignored: The Disciples questioned Jesus when he told them one of them would betray him - if Judas had been the personification of evil as he has been claimed to be, then shouldn't if have been obvious that he was the betrayer? Again, if his nature was so corrupt, why would Jesus have chosen him to be one of his apostles? Judas was a shrewd business man - so why would he have been willing to to sell his master for such an incredibly low price? If prophets foretold his betrayal as a part of the essential plan for the atonement- did Judas even have the choice not to sin? If it was the devil who took possession of Judas, how could he still be held responsible as the actor of the crime? These questions barely surface the complexity of both the story and truth of a man named Judas, a man buried underneath the notorious reputation of the epithet: Judas Iscariot.