How would you answer this question?

[volgadon]

Not when there is no other point of reference!

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the story of Dinah.

[WalkerW]

Except that the best commentary on the Bible is the Bible. The best source of information on the Bible is the Bible---especially in doctrine.

The Bible doesn't comment on itself, so this is absurd. The Bible doesn't explain to 21st century Americans 1st century Palestinian Jewish or ancient Israelite culture because the texts were written for 1st century Palestinian Jews or ancient Israelites who already understood these things.

[WalkerW]

And those with such a view of the scriptures are those who shouldn't be teaching them.

[volgadon]

Hear, hear!

[zerinus]

Not when there is no other point of reference!

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the story of Dinah.

What do you want me to tell you abut Dinah?

[volgadon]

Why the brothers reacted like they did, why Hamor gave in to their every whim that easily, you can start with those two.

In essence, what the story really is about.

[wenglund]

Zerinus, the OT was given to a people in a culture, place and time far removed from that of most church members. To understand them better we need to understand their background. Sometimes outside sources can be very important.

I think for instance that in order to understand the relationship of the ancient Israelites to God, one needs to know about ancient tribal systems. When we know what love entailed in a covenant setting, we can draw better, deeper spiritual lessons for our own lives. When we understand the importance of a name, we understand what blasphemy is, and hopefully, how to avoid it today.

Much depends on outside sources.

For instance, understanding the full picture of the Dinah story and how truly Christlike Jacob was is difficult without knowing what motivates other desert dwellers. Understanding requires context.

This kind of echoes the point made in 2Nephi 25, particularly verse 5:

"Yea, and my soul delighteth in the words of Isaiah, for I came out from Jerusalem, and mine eyes hath beheld the things of the Jews, and I know that the Jews do understand the things of the prophets, and there is none other people that understand the things which were spoken unto the Jews like unto them, save it be that they are taught after the manner of the things of the Jews."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[consiglieri]

What do you want to tell me abut Dinah?

Umm, I think he wanted you to tell him about Dinah.

You can start with her in the kitchen.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[volgadon]

Thanks, I misread Zerinus's post. I absolutely do what Zerinus to tell me.

[consiglieri]

I know that the Jews do understand the things of the prophets, and there is none other people that understand the things which were spoken unto the Jews like unto them, save it be that they are taught after the manner of the things of the Jews.

You know, as obvious as this sentiment sounds, the Book of Mormon really demonstrates a remarkably sophisticated awareness of cultural perspectives, given the time and place of its production.

There are many people today who have received a great deal of education who nevertheless hold to the untenable position that the Bible interprets the Bible.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[zerinus]

Why the brothers reacted like they did,...

For the same reason that people in that part of the world still do "honor killings". They took offence, and did what they did. In those days meting out swift retribution was common. There are several examples in the Bible of whole cities being massacred for a perceived wrong. There were no "nation states" in those days, with laws and powers to protect the rights of citizens such as there is today, and people often took the law into their own hands. However, their actions were not approved by Jacob, and probably not by the rest of the brothers; and when Jacob blessed all his sons before he died, he pronounced a lesser blessing on these two because of that massacre.

why Hamor gave in to their every whim that easily, you can start with those two.

There is no "why" about it, he was just deceived. He trusted them, and they turned out to be deceivers, and he and his people were duped. There is nothing strange about being duped, now or then.

In essence, what the story really is about.

The story is about what it is about. There is no ambiguity in it that its meaning should not be clear. I don't really understand your question.

[zerinus]

Umm, I think he wanted you to tell him about Dinah.

You can start with her in the kitchen.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Sorry for the typo. It has been corrected.

[volgadon]

For the same reason that people in that part of the world still do "honor killings". They took offence, and did what they did. In those days meting out swift retribution was common. There are several examples in the Bible of whole cities being massacred for a perceived wrong. There were no "nation states" in those days, with laws and powers to protect the rights of citizens such as there is today, and people often took the law into their own hands. However, their actions were not approved by Jacob, and probably not by the rest of the brothers; and when Jacob blessed all his sons before he died, he pronounced a lesser blessing on these two because of that massacre.

There is no "why" about it, he was just deceived. He trusted them, and they turned out to be deceivers, and he and his people were duped. There is nothing strange about being duped, now or then.

The story is about what it is about. There is no ambiguity in it that its meaning should not be clear. I don't really understand your question.

You were headed in the right direction, but stopped short of understanding the story.

Jacob's family was a semi-nomadic clan of shepeherds. Theirs was a precarious existence. They competed with others for the precious few resources (particularly water and good grazing) the land provided. It was a life not far removed from that of the Bedouin of Sinai, Palestine, Syria and Jordan until a very few years ago.

If they were weak they would not have lasted long. Someone stronger would come along and either drive out or kill them.

The primary function of a clan is one of defence. There is no individual existence. One for all and all for one, or rather, all are as one. If any member of the clan is attacked, it is liked they all were attacked. If one does wrong to someone outside the clan, all are held accountable.

If you attack even a single member of a clan, you have attacked his father, his brothers, his uncles, his nephews and his cousins.

All are obligated to fight back or take revenge.

This obligation applies ten-fold to their women. The women were usually left by themselves for most of the time, while the men looked for new pastures, went trading, resolved disputes or came to the aid of a relative. The only thing protecting the women (and oftentimes the property) was fear of retaliation.

By violating a woman, you are saying that you consider her brothers weak.

If they are known as weak, their lives are as good as dead in a society where might IS right.

They would be driven out of the land, spoiled and killed sooner or later, unless they could show that they were the toughest, most ruthless and brutal men around. In that case attacking people would think long and hard before attacking them.

This was especially true of their position as newcomers, who were as yet relatively unknown. The first to be attacked would be them, unless they showed their might.

Doesn't it strike you as strange that Hamor, the prince of the land, the ruler of a major city, obviously a powerful man, is quick to make the first step, to offer Dinah's family whatever they wanted (the equivalent of a blank check, in effect), even if his son fancied Dinah?

In most cases even the strongest of Bedouin clans would hurry to patch things up between themselves and the weakest clan, if the latter had been wronged.

Nobody needs a bloody vendetta, even if you are powerful.

Hamor didn't want his people murdered, his flocks driven off, his fields burned and his trade routes disrupted, even if the scale of these assaults were minor.

That his son was infatuated with the girl provided him with an excellent way of making sure Jacob could restore his honour, and at the same time enter into an alliance with them. He would be safe from them and they would provide added protection. In such cultures marriage is the form that most alliances took because it made one part of an extended family.

That is why Hamor trusted them. He thought a generous gift, land and trade rights and a matrimonial alliance gave him good reason to trust them.

Jacob's sons (and the text does not name them so it is safe to assume that all adult males are meant by this) obviously considered that their long-term interests would be best served by a spectacular revenge, a revenge so terrible that memory of it would serve as a deterent for many years to come.

They knew that they did not stand a chance in head-on confrontation, so instead chose deception and treachery.

The moral of the story is we make look weak but don't mess with us, we will destroy you.

The story as presented though is about the conflict between fathers and sons.

Jacob and his sons both both shared a similar goal- to make a living in the land of Canaan.

Their visions on how to achieve that goal, however, were very different.

Jacob wanted to live peacefully, he thought such an act would irreparably blacken his reputation. His sons considered that the effect would be just the opposite.

Jacob was deeply hurt when his sons chose to do things their way, and not his. That is probably the deepest wound a child can inflict on its parent- rejecting the parent's way.

This story shows the depth of Jacob's character, that he turned away from such violence, which was the cultural norm, indeed, more than that, it was the means of survival.

Every story is about what it is about, but we don't always see that at first glance.

Shallow spiritual lessons are the only thing that can be drawn from a shallow understanding.

[mfbukowski]

By the way, I've just spent an hour or so with the general Sunday School president regarding teaching in the Church. My story is coming this weekend. One of the points he made was that the Brethren regard the scriptures as the Church curriculum.

Those boring old things AGAIN? Cheesh. How long have we been studying THOSE?

At least they could make them computer animated or something! You know, with a song or two, maybe a dancing number- what would be wrong with that? You know, something ENTERTAINING!

[mfbukowski]

Umm, I think he wanted you to tell him about Dinah.

You can start with her in the kitchen.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Oh, I get it.

You mean dinner in the dinah, nothing could be finah.

But I can't play it- no banjo.

[zerinus]

You were headed in the right direction, but stopped short of understanding the story.

Jacob's family was a semi-nomadic clan of shepeherds. Theirs was a precarious existence. They competed with others for the precious few resources (particularly water and good grazing) the land provided. It was a life not far removed from that of the Bedouin of Sinai, Palestine, Syria and Jordan until a very few years ago.

If they were weak they would not have lasted long. Someone stronger would come along and either drive out or kill them.

The primary function of a clan is one of defence. There is no individual existence. One for all and all for one, or rather, all are as one. If any member of the clan is attacked, it is liked they all were attacked. If one does wrong to someone outside the clan, all are held accountable.

If you attack even a single member of a clan, you have attacked his father, his brothers, his uncles, his nephews and his cousins.

All are obligated to fight back or take revenge.

This obligation applies ten-fold to their women. The women were usually left by themselves for most of the time, while the men looked for new pastures, went trading, resolved disputes or came to the aid of a relative. The only thing protecting the women (and oftentimes the property) was fear of retaliation.

By violating a woman, you are saying that you consider her brothers weak.

If they are known as weak, their lives are as good as dead in a society where might IS right.

They would be driven out of the land, spoiled and killed sooner or later, unless they could show that they were the toughest, most ruthless and brutal men around. In that case attacking people would think long and hard before attacking them.

This was especially true of their position as newcomers, who were as yet relatively unknown. The first to be attacked would be them, unless they showed their might.

Doesn't it strike you as strange that Hamor, the prince of the land, the ruler of a major city, obviously a powerful man, is quick to make the first step, to offer Dinah's family whatever they wanted (the equivalent of a blank check, in effect), even if his son fancied Dinah?

In most cases even the strongest of Bedouin clans would hurry to patch things up between themselves and the weakest clan, if the latter had been wronged.

Nobody needs a bloody vendetta, even if you are powerful.

Hamor didn't want his people murdered, his flocks driven off, his fields burned and his trade routes disrupted, even if the scale of these assaults were minor.

That his son was infatuated with the girl provided him with an excellent way of making sure Jacob could restore his honour, and at the same time enter into an alliance with them. He would be safe from them and they would provide added protection. In such cultures marriage is the form that most alliances took because it made one part of an extended family.

That is why Hamor trusted them. He thought a generous gift, land and trade rights and a matrimonial alliance gave him good reason to trust them.

Jacob's sons (and the text does not name them so it is safe to assume that all adult males are meant by this) obviously considered that their long-term interests would be best served by a spectacular revenge, a revenge so terrible that memory of it would serve as a deterent for many years to come.

They knew that they did not stand a chance in head-on confrontation, so instead chose deception and treachery.

The moral of the story is we make look weak but don't mess with us, we will destroy you.

The story as presented though is about the conflict between fathers and sons.

Jacob and his sons both both shared a similar goal- to make a living in the land of Canaan.

Their visions on how to achieve that goal, however, were very different.

Jacob wanted to live peacefully, he thought such an act would irreparably blacken his reputation. His sons considered that the effect would be just the opposite.

Jacob was deeply hurt when his sons chose to do things their way, and not his. That is probably the deepest wound a child can inflict on its parent- rejecting the parent's way.

This story shows the depth of Jacob's character, that he turned away from such violence, which was the cultural norm, indeed, more than that, it was the means of survival.

Every story is about what it is about, but we don't always see that at first glance.

Shallow spiritual lessons are the only thing that can be drawn from a shallow understanding.

You have let your imagination run wild with that one. That may be a good script for a Hollywood movie, but it ain't scripture interpretation.

[consiglieri]

You have let your imagination run wild with that one. That may be a good script for a Hollywood movie, but it ain't scripture interpretation.

This is a good example of the "Manual Mentality" that so infects the body religious.

So long as we read contemporary Mormonism into the scriptures, contemporary Mormonism is all they will have to say to us.

HAMLET--Do you see nothing there?

QUEEN GERTRUDE--Nothing at all; yet all that is I see.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[WalkerW]

You have let your imagination run wild with that one. That may be a good script for a Hollywood movie, but it ain't scripture interpretation.

What an arrogant, intellectually hollow response.

[volgadon]

You have let your imagination run wild with that one. That may be a good script for a Hollywood movie, but it ain't scripture interpretation.

Why isn't it a valid interpretation?

In other words, I would like for you to explain why using examples from a society a lot closer to the reality of the text than your own is not a valid interpretation.

[consiglieri]

*chirrup* *chirrup*

[zerinus]

Why isn't it a valid interpretation?

In other words, I would like for you to explain why using examples from a society a lot closer to the reality of the text than your own is not a valid interpretation.

Because it is a fantasy; it is not what I get from reading those verses. I am not going to go through it line by line, and analyse it in detail. I can't be bothered to spend the time required to do that. That involves doing a lot of work, and I don't think it would do the people round here a lot of good. It would be a waste of time and effort.

[zerinus]

"It has always been my province to dig up hidden mysteries

[volgadon]

Because it is a fantasy; it is not what I get from reading those verses. I am not going to go through it line by line, and analyse it in detail. I can't be bothered to spend the time required to do that. That involves doing a lot of work, and I don't think it would do the people round here a lot of good. It would be a waste of time and effort.

Those hollow assertions impress no one. Of course you don't get that from those verses. You are a 21st century American, your existence is vastly different to that of the Patriarchs. You don't see the world as they did, pure and simple.

Outside sources are essential in bridging that gap.

So in effect, you claim I made up some fantasy, yet you won't undertake even the slightest effort to show that such is the case.

[consiglieri]

The kind of "new things" that Joseph Smith had in mind were not the kind that you have in mind.

How could you possibly know?

[consiglieri]

Because it is a fantasy; it is not what I get from reading those verses. I am not going to go through it line by line, and analyse it in detail. I can't be bothered to spend the time required to do that. That involves doing a lot of work, and I don't think it would do the people round here a lot of good. It would be a waste of time and effort.

Your condemnation rests in your own post.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri