Simple: the purpose of the story is to sever the connection between Beit-El and Canaanite practice, thereby justifying the construction of a temple at that site during the time of Yerovam.
I'm afraid this doesn't make much sense to me.
Why should the Torah attemt to justify an action which according to itself (and the prophets too) was agains't G-d's wishes?
Good point... I'll look at that a bit more closely, but either way, the analysis still stands. (The point of the story is to distance Beit-El from its Canaanite past.)
The story of Beth El is an E story. E is associated with the Northern Kingdom. Another example of this is story of Jacob's blessing of Ephraim (the ruling clan in that Kingdom) which also seems odd given that the secession of the Northern Kingdom was condemned by the later authors in the Southern Kingdom. The only question is why E was incorporated into the Torah by the redactor at all. The redactor is believed to have lived after the destruction of the Northern Kingdom when the refugees from that kingdom fled south. The answer may be that, while the victor gets to write the history book, he is still stuck with loser's sources in writing their history book. Another possibility is that the redactor was intentionally trying to incorporate the religious traditions of the refugees from the Northern Kingdom to the extent possible in order to integrate them into a single cohesive theology.
Interesting, you kofer b'ikar 
I think you miss the point. The story of Yaakov at Bet-el is intended to give a patriarchal origination to worship at that place and perhaps a justification for Yeruva's later construction of a temple there. Your comment blasting Kugel misses the point. The Yaakov story is just that: a story. Kugel is explaining that the Yaakov story was written because Bet-el had religous significance. I am no fan of Kugel but, quite frankly, your comment demonstrates an amazing inability to grasp what Kugel (and others) are saying here.
Commenting by HaloScan
