NOM

For pragmatic reasons, I have been taking an institute class this semester on the Old Testament. A few days ago we covered the story of David, Bathsheba, and Uriah. I've heard this narrative taught many times over the years, and this time was no different. The point of the story, the big thing we are supposed to learn, is always to be in the right place at the right time. David's snowball of terrible decisions starts there.

"Where did David start to go wrong?" the teacher always asks.

*wait for response*

"It was when he decided to stay at home instead of joining his army on the battlefront, as kings were supposed to do."

From this point is extrapolated the idea that we should always go to all of our meetings, we should always hold FHE, we should be in the temple as much as possible, etc., etc., etc. Because if you do, you'll be "blessed," but if you don't, who knows but what you might seduce your neighbor and have her husband killed.

This time I looked at the story from a new perspective. The above lesson is only feasible if you just look at David's side of the story. Let's take a look at Uriah's side: He went to battle as he was commanded like a good, obedient church member. He came back when summoned, but he loyally stayed with the soldiers instead of going home to his wife like David wanted. And then he obediently carries David's deadly letter to the battlefront. He is always in the right place at the right time.

And what was his reward? His wife was either seduced or possibly raped, and then he was sent to die. Being in the "right place at the right time" is no guarantee of anything in life, and most of the time it's impossible to know what the right or wrong place is until we look back with hindsight.

No, the real lesson of the story is that men in power are at risk of taking too many liberties with that power, even the best of men as David was purported to be. We see it all the time, from David (fictional though his story may be) to Jan Matthys to Joseph Smith to modern politicians/businessmen with their various scandals.

No, the real lesson of the story is that men in power are at risk of taking too many liberties with that power, even the best of men as David was purported to be. We see it all the time, from David (fictional though his story may be) to Jan Matthys to Joseph Smith to modern politicians/businessmen with their various scandals.

This is the version that I have always heard when both LDS and not. Power corrupts, be wary.

I hated the first interpretation or any cautionary tales like that. When I was in the MTC they told us this awful story of a missionary who had his face maimed from a broken basketball hoop and backboard. They described the hoop as a terrible and already broken down. They played on it every day, and then one night they stayed out after curfew and the backboard broke and crushed his jaw. Apparently, he slammed dunked on this old thing and it just broke off. He was deformed because it destroyed most of his face and they couldn't quite get his cheekbones right after that.

The lesson I took away from it was, "don't slam dunk on a fifty year old hoop that is rusted all over", the lesson they pushed at us was "don't go out after dark".

I think your analysis was great. Anecdotal evidence can be found to support almost any point of view. David is a great example, and one of many, of prophets going off the rails.

That shift in narration changes the whole story! Wow! Excellent observation.

My unpopular opinion has always been that he was in too many polygamous relationships and had ceased to view women as anything other than objects of pleasure. Getting rid of Uriah was just a way to get a pretty new concubine. But bringing up a polygamous a**hat who takes advantage of women in committed relationships is a no-no, so of course we shall treat the man as a saint.

sparky wrote: This time I looked at the story from a new perspective. The above lesson is only feasible if you just look at David's side of the story. Let's take a look at Uriah's side: He went to battle as he was commanded like a good, obedient church member. He came back when summoned, but he loyally stayed with the soldiers instead of going home to his wife like David wanted. And then he obediently carries David's deadly letter to the battlefront. He is always in the right place at the right time.

And what was his reward? His wife was either seduced or possibly raped, and then he was sent to die. Being in the "right place at the right time" is no guarantee of anything in life, and most of the time it's impossible to know what the right or wrong place is until we look back with hindsight.

No, the real lesson of the story is that men in power are at risk of taking too many liberties with that power, even the best of men as David was purported to be. We see it all the time, from David (fictional though his story may be) to Jan Matthys to Joseph Smith to modern politicians/businessmen with their various scandals.

Mind blown.

What a great observation. Both on Uriah as well as the people in power perspective.

Thanks.

The OP had a brilliant, brilliant observation. I am going to use it sometime, but I won't claim it as my own. Very insightful.

Great post! I remember in seminary being taught that David's first mistake was not turning away when he first saw her from the rooftop, and from there it turned into a chastity lesson (immediately RUN away from porn/nekkid girlfriend, whatever). I find your point about Uriah much more cogent and timely.