The harlot Isabel

This turned out to be unexpectedly lengthy and speculative, but I think the hypotheses it introduces have got legs.

I mentioned this in passing in my last post, "Is El a Lamanite god in the Book of Mormon?", but I don't think "the harlot Isabel" (Alma 39:3) was just a hooker -- which in turn means that "these things" which are "most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost" (v. 5) may not refer primarily to, as the chapter summary in the current CJCLDS edition has it, "sexual sin" (though of course that is abominable, too, as Jacob 2-3 makes crystal clear).

In support of the conventional reading, there is obviously the use of the word "harlot." Beyond that, we are also told that "she did steal away the hearts of many" (v. 4), which could refer to many men falling in love with her. Finally, in calling Corianton to repentance, Alma exhorts him to "go no more after the lusts of your eyes" (v. 9), which sounds like a man being seduced by a beautiful temptress.

And that's it, really. Nothing else in Alma's four-chapter speech to Corianton sounds at all like a lecture on chastity -- again, compare it to Jacob 2-3, which very clearly is a lecture on chastity. Instead, Alma devotes most of his time to doctrinal minutiae about the timing of the resurrection, the meaning of the word restoration, and so on -- none of which would seem to be a high priority if he were speaking to someone so religiously unserious as to be traveling some distance to patronize a top-drawer prostitute when he was supposed to be on a mission.

We are told that Corianton "didst forsake the ministry, and did go over into the land of Siron among the borders of the Lamanites, after the harlot Isabel" (v. 3). In other words, this is not a case of a missionary coming across an alluring prostitute and succumbing to temptation. He left the land of the Zoramites, where he had been preaching, and traveled to another land to be with a specific harlot.

It's odd that Alma would call out the harlot by name if she was just a harlot. In a book with vanishingly few named female characters, where even queens go unnamed, Alma saw fit to mention -- and Mormon saw fit to include in his abridgment -- the name of some prostitute his son slept with? I don't think he's doing that. I think he's calling Isabel a harlot, accusing her of harlotry -- meaning that she wasn't a harlot openly, or in the ordinary sense.

Alma says to Corianton:

Suffer not yourself to be led away by any vain or foolish thing; suffer not the devil to lead away your heart again after those wicked harlots. Behold, O my son, how great iniquity ye brought upon the Zoramites; for when they saw your conduct they would not believe in my words (v. 11).

But how did the Zoramites see his conduct if he left the land of the Zoramites and traveled to Siron to do it? It scarcely seems likely that he would have announced publicly that he was going on a road trip for the purpose of sleeping with a particularly famous prostitute. Even if he had been sleeping with hookers in the land of the Zoramites first, that is the sort of sin one commits in secret, not something that would likely become publicly known. It seems that Corianton's great sin was something he did openly.

Also, notice the strangeness of the reference to "those wicked harlots" -- not harlots in general (so Corianton wasn't a common whoremonger), and not Isabel in particular (so it wasn't an individual love affair, condemned as "harlotry" because illicit), but "those wicked harlots," a specific group. Elsewhere in scripture, harlots are never called "wicked," that adjective being reserved for those who patronize them or pimp them out. Here, too, it seems that Alma would be more concerned to condemn Corianton's behavior as wicked rather than that of the harlot. The only other reference in all of scripture to prostitutes being "wicked" is that in Nephi's high mountain vision to "the wickedness of the great whore" (1 Ne. 14:12) -- where it refers not to a literal hooker but to "that great and abominable church, which is the whore of all the earth" (1 Ne. 22:13).

That's what I think we're dealing with here, too: not a call girl but an abominable church. If Corianton did "forsake the ministry" to join a cult, that very likely would have been public knowledge -- converts don't keep it secret; they spread the word -- and it would have undermined Alma's teaching much more directly and seriously than if Corianton had merely struggled with chastity.

Sexual irregularities may have played a role in this cult, as they often do, but not necessarily. False religion itself is consistently referred to in scripture with the language of prostitution. For example, the phrase "go a whoring" occurs 18 times in the Old Testament, and every single time it refers not to literal prostitution but to the worship of false gods. Jeremiah 3 is another clear example, where repeated references to "playing the harlot" refer not to sex but to the nations of Israel and Judah being unfaithful to their God.

As I mentioned in my last post, Isabel is the only name in the Book of Mormon to include the theophoric element Baal, which again suggests the worship of a false god. Specifically, Isabel may be a form of the biblical name Jezebel (pronounced Izebel in Hebrew). This is interesting because, besides the historical Jezebel who championed the worship of Baal in the days of Elijah, there is another woman called by that name in the Bible:

Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds (Rev. 2:20-22).

Of course Alma could not have been influenced by John of Patmos, but he may have been using a similar rhetorical device. It is unlikely that this false prophetess's name was actually Jezebel; rather, John calls her that in the same spirit in which he calls Rome "Babylon" and Jerusalem "Sodom and Egypt." Alma may be doing the same thing. Despite all the sexual language used -- seduce, fornication, bed, adultery -- it is pretty clear that "Jezebel" is not merely a woman of loose morals but a religious leader, one who "calleth herself a prophetess." Another interesting parallel is that the condemnation of "Jezebel" is prefaced with "I have a few things against thee," just as Alma tells Corianton "this is what I have against thee" (Alma 39:2). That particular turn of phrase is found only in Revelation 2 and Alma 39.

Alma's reference to Isabel's stealing "away the hearts of many" is also more consistent with the language of false religion than with that of romantic love or lust. For example:

But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them (Deut. 30:17).

And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart. For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods (1 Kgs. 11:3-4).

The passage about Solomon is particularly clear. Even when it is his wives and concubines that "turned away his heart," the reference is not to love or sex but to false religion.

An even clearer example, using the same verb steal, refers to Alma himself prior to his conversion to religion of his father:

And he became a great hinderment to the prosperity of the church of God; stealing away the hearts of the people; causing much dissension among the people; giving a chance for the enemy of God to exercise his power over them (Mosiah 27:9).

Again, this very clearly refers to drawing people into false religious beliefs or practices, not to sexual seduction.

So if Isabel was a religious leader, what was her doctrine? We can perhaps infer it from the other points Alma makes, and the misconceptions he seems eager to rectify, in the remainder of his speech to Corianton.

First, "concerning the coming of Christ," (Alma 39:15), Alma says:

And now I will ease your mind somewhat on this subject. Behold, you marvel why these things should be known so long beforehand. Behold, I say unto you, is not a soul at this time as precious unto God as a soul will be at the time of his coming? (v. 17)

If Corianton's unease of mind on this issue came from Isabel, then perhaps she taught either, like Sherem (Jacob 7:7) and Korihor (Alma 30:13) that foreknowledge was impossible or, like mainstream Bible critics today, that the words of prophets always have to do with their own time rather than with the distant future.

Second, Alma says:

I perceive that thy mind is worried concerning the resurrection of the dead. Behold, I say unto you, that there is no resurrection -- or, I would say, in other words, that this mortal does not put on immortality, this corruption does not put on incorruption -- until after the coming of Christ. Behold, he bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead. But behold, my son, the resurrection is not yet (Alma 40:1-3).

Corianton had a problem with the doctrine of the resurrection, but not the one you would expect. Rather than doubting that resurrection was possible, he apparently believed that it was already happening in his time, before the coming of Christ.

Alma's next point is not explicitly tied to Corianton's worries, but we can still assume that that is his reason for bringing up this otherwise seemingly unimportant question and for having "inquired diligently of the Lord to know" (v. 9) more about it:

Now there must needs be a space betwixt the time of death and the time of the resurrection. And now I would inquire what becometh of the souls of men from this time of death to the time appointed for the resurrection? (vv. 6-7)

Alma then addresses misconceptions (presumably those of Corianton under the influence of Isabel) about the meaning of "first resurrection":

Now, there are some that have understood that this state of happiness and this state of misery of the soul, before the resurrection, was a first resurrection. Yea, I admit it may be termed a resurrection, the raising of the spirit or the soul and their consignation to happiness or misery, according to the words which have been spoken.

And behold, again it hath been spoken, that there is "a first resurrection, a resurrection of all those who have been, or who are, or who shall be, down to the resurrection of Christ" from the dead. Now, we do not suppose that this first resurrection, which is spoken of in this manner, can be the resurrection of the souls and their consignation to happiness or misery. Ye cannot suppose that this is what it meaneth (vv. 15-17).

The passage I have put in quotation marks is quoting Abinadi (Mosiah 15:21), who is the one who introduced the idea of a "first resurrection," so apparently Isabel accepted the authority of Abinadi (who converted Alma Sr., Corianton's grandfather) but interpreted his words differently from Alma.

Alma then begins his discussion of the meaning of "restoration":

Yea, this bringeth about the restoration of those things of which has been spoken by the mouths of the prophets. The soul shall be restored to the body, and the body to the soul; yea, and every "limb and joint shall be restored to its" body; yea, even a hair of the head shall not be lost; but all things "shall be restored to" their proper and "perfect frame." And now, my son, this is the restoration of which has been spoken by the mouths of the prophets (Alma 40:22-24).

The quotation marks indicate that Alma is here paraphrasing (with some parts quoted verbatim) his own former missionary partner Amulek (Alma 11:43-44). However, the first reference to this general "restoration" (as opposed to Nephi's references to the restoration of Israel) is again from Abinadi (Mosiah 15:24).

Alma goes on to refute the false understanding of "restoration" promoted by "some" (i.e. Isabel's group):

And now, my son, I have somewhat to say concerning the restoration of which has been spoken; for behold, some have wrested the scriptures, and have gone far astray because of this thing. And I perceive that thy mind has been worried also concerning this thing. But behold, I will explain it unto thee (Alma 41:1).

He explains that "restoration" means the righteous will be rewarded and the wicked punished. Then he says:

And now behold, my son, do not risk one more offense against your God upon those points of doctrine, which ye have hitherto risked to commit sin. Do not suppose, because it has been spoken concerning restoration, that ye shall be restored from sin to happiness. Behold, I say unto you, wickedness never was happiness (Alma 41:9-10).

Note that Corianton's offense against God concerns "points of doctrine" rather than sexual sin.

Alma moves on to the next "worry" of Corianton's:

And now, my son, I perceive there is somewhat more which doth worry your mind, which ye cannot understand -- which is concerning the justice of God in the punishment of the sinner; for ye do try to suppose that it is injustice that the sinner should be consigned to a state of misery (Alma 42:1).

As an aside, I note the synchronicity that just this morning I read these lines from Edward FitzGerald's Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyam, quoted in The King in Yellow:

Oh Thou who burn'st in Heart for those who burn
In Hell, whose fires thyself shall feed in turn;
  How long be crying, 'Mercy on them, God!'
Why, who art Thou to teach, and He to learn?

As a further synchronicity, FitzGerald notes (though this is not quoted in The King in Yellow) that this tetrastich is supposed "to have arisen from a Dream, in which Omar's mother asked about his future fate," leaving it unclear whether it was Omar or his mother that had the dream. This syncs with the subject of my recent post, "Who had the vision that converted Abish?"

This ends our synchronistic intermission. Back to the harlot Isabel.

Alma's lengthy explanation of the punishment of sinners is not germane to our topic here. He concludes with this:

O my son, I desire that ye should deny the justice of God no more. Do not endeavor to excuse yourself in the least point because of your sins, by denying the justice of God (Alma 42:30).

To summarize, Corianton's main false beliefs, which we are assuming reflect the teachings of Isabel, are: (1) that resurrection is already happening; (2) that resurrection happens immediately after death, since otherwise what would happen between death and resurrection?; (3) that the "first resurrection" is not a resurrection of the body but the survival of the soul; (4) that "restoration" means being restored from sin to happiness; and (5) that it would be unjust for God to punish sinners.

I think this whole complex of ideas can be traced to a different interpretation of the teachings of Abinadi. He taught:

But behold, the bands of death shall be broken, and the Son reigneth, and hath power over the dead; therefore, he bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead. And there cometh a resurrection, even a first resurrection; yea, even a resurrection of those that have been, and who are, and who shall be, even until the resurrection of Christ -- for so shall he be called (Mosiah 15:20-21).

I think a natural interpretation of this is that Christ will bring a resurrection when he comes, but that "there [also] cometh a resurrection, even a first resurrection" -- "first" because it happens before the later resurrection brought by Christ. What will be different about the resurrection brought by Christ? Perhaps it is a bodily resurrection, whereas the first resurrection (which has been happening all along) is simply a raising of the spirit after bodily death.

Abinadi certainly seems to be saying in this passage that the first resurrection includes absolutely everyone who dies before the resurrection of Christ. In fact, when Alma quotes Abinadi to Corianton, he even adds the implied word all: "a first resurrection, a resurrection of all those who have been, or who are, or who shall be, down to the resurrection of Christ."

Abinadi continues:

And now, the resurrection of all the prophets, and all those that have believed in their words, or all those that have kept the commandments of God, shall come forth in the first resurrection; therefore, they are the first resurrection. They are raised to dwell with God who has redeemed them; thus they have eternal life through Christ, who has broken the bands of death (vv. 22-23).

Here the first resurrection is equated with being "raised to dwell with God" to "have eternal life." In other words, it appears that everyone in the first resurrection -- meaning everyone before the resurrection of Christ -- goes to Heaven. There is no explicit mention of the resurrection of the body. Against the seeming universalism of the preceding verses, these seem to limit the first resurrection to the prophets, those who have believed the prophets, and those who have kept the commandments.

He goes on to include others, too, though, again suggesting universalism:

And these are those who have part in the first resurrection; and these are they that have died before Christ came, in their ignorance, not having salvation declared unto them. And thus the Lord bringeth about the restoration of these; and they have a part in the first resurrection, or have eternal life, being redeemed by the Lord (vv. 20-24).

Thus far, we can understand how someone might misunderstand Abinadi as saying that all sinners (or at least all before Christ) will be "restored" rather than punished. But how to reconcile this with what Abinadi says next?

But behold, and fear, and tremble before God, for ye ought to tremble; for the Lord redeemeth none such that rebel against him and die in their sins; yea, even all those that have perished in their sins ever since the world began, that have wilfully rebelled against God, that have known the commandments of God, and would not keep them; these are they that have no part in the first resurrection. Therefore ought ye not to tremble? For salvation cometh to none such; for the Lord hath redeemed none such; yea, neither can the Lord redeem such; for he cannot deny himself; for he cannot deny justice when it has its claim (vv. 26-27).

Alma Sr. had been a priest of Noah but was then converted by Abinadi. Alma Jr. was at first "numbered among the unbelievers" and sought "to destroy the church of God" (Mosiah 27:8, 10) which had been founded by his father on the teachings of Abinadi, but he later converted to his father's Abinadite religion. Now we have Alma Jr.'s son Corianton falling in with Isabel's movement, which apparently accepted the teachings of Abinadi but not those of either of the Almas, for Alma Sr. also implied that not everyone would "be numbered with those of the first resurrection" (Mosiah 18:9). Now it also appears that Isabel did not have exactly the same words of Abinadi as the Almas, for the verses quoted above flatly contradict her doctrine, and one can only "wrest" these things so far.

The words of Abinadi as we have them were written down by Alma Sr. from memory some time after he had heard them (Mosiah 17:4) and are thus unlikely to be strictly accurate. Is it possible that Isabel's movement was founded by someone who was also present in the court of Noah and was converted by Abinadi's words, but remembered them somewhat differently?

And that leads us to another possible significance of the designation "harlot." It is said of Noah and his priests (of whom Alma Sr. was one):

And it came to pass that he placed his heart upon his riches, and he spent his time in riotous living with his wives and his concubines; and so did also his priests spend their time with harlots (Mosiah 11:14).

The wording "and so did also his priests" implies that the priests did the same thing that Noah himself did, and that "harlots" is thus a pejorative reference to their own wives and concubines (which they also had; see Mosiah 11:4). For those who condemn polygamy, taking additional wives and concubines is equated with "committing whoredoms" (Jacob 2:23).

What happened to Alma Sr.'s wives and concubines when he converted to the doctrine of Abinadi and fled the court of Noah? Their husband's falling out of favor with the king would have put them in danger, so it seems likely that they would have fled with him. However, the converted Alma could not have remained "married" to any but one of them, and this abandonment might naturally have led to a falling-out. Thus we have a perfect explanation for a woman, called a "harlot," who accepted Abinadi, was at odds with the Almas, and had a somewhat different recollection of what exactly Abinadi had taught: Isabel was one of Alma Sr.'s former wives or concubines. Rather than being a seductive young temptress, she was a woman old enough to be Corianton's grandmother, and perhaps his actual grandmother, or else one of his grandmother's former sister-wives.

If this line of thinking is correct, it sheds light on another question that has bothered me for a long time: Why had Alma Jr. been trying to destroy his father's church in the first place? Actively trying to destroy the church, and to lead away others after him, suggests not mere waywardness but religious zeal. Alma Jr. is often compared to Saul of Tarsus -- the parallels are so obvious that critics accuse Joseph Smith of plagiarizing the New Testament story -- but Saul's motive is clear. Saul was a strict Pharisee (Acts 26:5), Christians venerated a scathing critic of the Pharisees as the Son of God, and Saul saw it as his religious duty to extirpate this heretical sect. Alma Jr., in stark contrast, was the son of the founder and high priest of the very religion he sought to destroy! Where did his heterodox views come from?

If his own mother was Isabel, promulgating a rival interpretation of Abinadi (on whose authority as a prophet Alma Sr.'s church rested), it all makes sense. It also explains his success in "stealing away the hearts of" so many in Alma Sr.'s church and "causing much dissension among" them (Mosiah 27:9). As happened after the assassination of Joseph Smith, different believers in the murdered prophet understood (or in some cases "wrested") his teachings differently and founded rival sects.

This has all been highly speculative, but I think it explains a lot and is thus likely to be a good seed.

The polygamy escape clause

1. Jacob's sermon and the escape clause

Mormonism and polygamy are so closely connected in the popular mind that I suppose it comes as a bit of a surprise to first-time readers that the Book of Mormon contains an impassioned diatribe against the practice:

But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.

For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.

And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.

For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.

And now behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done these things which ye ought not to have done.

Behold, ye have done greater iniquities than the Lamanites, our brethren. Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you. And because of the strictness of the word of God, which cometh down against you, many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds.

[. . .]

Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father[s] -- that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them.

And now, this commandment they observe to keep; wherefore, because of this observance, in keeping this commandment, the Lord God will not destroy them, but will be merciful unto them; and one day they shall become a blessed people.

Behold, their husbands love their wives, and their wives love their husbands; and their husbands and their wives love their children; and their unbelief and their hatred towards you is because of the iniquity of their fathers; wherefore, how much better are you than they, in the sight of your great Creator? (Jacob 2:23-25, 3:5-7)

The verse I have bolded is the "escape clause." It is almost universally understood to mean that if the Lord decides to "raise up seed unto" him -- meaning to have his people reproduce more prolifically -- he "will command" them to practice polygamy; "otherwise they shall hearken unto these things" -- meaning everything else Jacob has just said about polygamy, namely, that it is one of the "grosser crimes," an "abominable" excuse for "committing whoredoms."

Notice how glaringly out of place this is in the context of the surrounding verses. Before and after the escape clause, Jacob is fulminating against polygamy as an unadulterated evil -- but then in the middle of this denunciation he pauses to mention parenthetically that actually the Lord might command it sometimes and in that case it's fine?

What possible rhetorical motivation could there be for such an aside? If some modern Christian preacher against polygamy inserted some such escape clause into his sermon, we would assume its purpose was to excuse the various biblical worthies -- Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, Solomon -- who had more than one wife. Jacob in the Book of Mormon, though, despite being named after one of these biblical polygamists, clearly does not shy away from condemning them. He states unequivocally that the polygamy practiced by David and Solomon "was abominable." In any case, the excuse he gives -- that polygamy is okay if God commands it -- wouldn't exonerate anyone in the Bible, since nowhere in the Bible is anyone ever commanded to practice polygamy.

2. An interpolation?

If Jacob's sermon were a biblical text, I would be extremely confident in calling the escape clause an interpolation, and I'm sure this opinion would be virtually universal among critics: It clearly doesn't belong there but was added later by someone who wanted to practice polygamy.

It would be tempting to conclude the same thing about the Book of Mormon text: It originally condemned polygamy with no exceptions but was then modified (by Joseph Smith later in life, or perhaps by Brigham Young) to allow it in some cases. Unlike the patriarchs and kings of the Bible, Mormon leaders did claim that God had commanded them to practice polygamy, and the so the escape clause would appear to be tailor-made to justify them. The problem is that the escape clause was there from the beginning. I don't believe the original manuscript for this part of the book has survived, but certainly the escape clause is already there in the first published edition.

If we still want to see the escape clause as an interpolation, we have following options:

1. Joseph Smith modifying his own work. For the skeptic, who sees the entire text as the work of Joseph Smith, it's hard to explain the inclusion of both the anti-polygamy sermon and the escape clause. If Smith had intended to practice polygamy, why write the anti-polygamy sermon in the first place? If he did not intend to practice polygamy, why put in the escape clause? It must be that he was originally against polygamy but later changed his mind.

If the escape clause had been added later in Smith's career, it would be relatively easy to explain. Perhaps he began writing the Book of Mormon with relatively pure motives (some version of Dan Vogel's "pious fraud" theory), but once he began to amass a cult following, he was corrupted by power, wished to take advantage of his position for his own sexual gratification, and modified the text accordingly.

The problem is that the escape clause was already there in the first edition, so Smith's second thoughts on the total polygamy ban must have come just a few weeks or months after the original anti-polygamy sermon had been dictated. This would also have been before the Book of Mormon was published, before he had founded a church, and therefore presumably before he was subject to the temptations a successful cult leader is heir to. It's hard to account for the change in that time frame.

2. Joseph Smith modifying revealed material. In this scenario, the text of the Book of Mormon was revealed to Joseph Smith as claimed (not created by him), but he added the escape clause himself, either during the dictation or shortly thereafter. This would mean Smith was both a genuine prophet, producing the Book of Mormon by supernatural means, and at the same time a bit of a scoundrel, daring to tamper with holy writ in the service of his own ulterior motives. This may seem far-fetched, and certainly it doesn't fit well into the usual "prophet or con man" dichotomy, but I don't think it's entirely implausible. It wouldn't be the first time substantial spiritual gifts coexisted with a pretty serious dark side. In fact, the mainstream LDS view of Smith -- that he was a true prophet who also practiced polygamy and lied about it -- implies a similar view of his character.

3. God modifying Jacob. If we take the view that Mormon polygamy really was commanded and justified by God, then perhaps God himself added the escape clause as he was revealing Jacob's words to Joseph Smith. The higher law of polygamy had not been revealed to Jacob, who therefore spoke from his limited understanding. Since God planned to command Smith later to practice polygamy, he added the escape clause to make it easier for the Prophet to accept this future commandment.

4. Later Nephites modifying Jacob. Because the pre-Mosiah books of the Book of Mormon were not abridged by Mormon, it is easy to assume that they contain the unedited words of Nephi, Jacob, and the others. In fact, though, we know virtually nothing of the provenance of the "small account." All Mormon says is this:

I searched among the records which had been delivered into my hands, and I found these plates, which contained this small account of the prophets, from Jacob down to the reign of this king Benjamin, and also many of the words of Nephi (W of M v. 3).

He just "found" them, some 900 years after the time of Jacob? This is obviously suspect, just as suspect as Hilkiah happening to "find" the previously unknown Book of Deuteronomy in the Temple one day. I've sometimes entertained the possibility that the Small Account, though included by Mormon in good faith, was actually late Nephite pseudepigrapha, not the authentic writings of Nephi and Jacob. This would account for some of the Small Account's perplexing features, such as the dated prophecies of the coming of Christ, which seem to have been unknown to later Nephites, and the quotations from Malachi 3 and 4, which the Nephites had access to only after the coming of Christ.

Another possibility, though, is that the Small Account contains a a core of authentic early Nephite texts, but with many additions and alterations by the many generations of record-keepers through whose hands it passed. We know that some later Nephites (King Noah and his people at the very least) did practice polygamy, so perhaps the escape clause was added by later Nephites to an otherwise authentic sermon by Jacob in order to justify such things.

I think this idea is worth pursuing, and that it may be worthwhile to read the whole of the Small Account with an critical eye out for passages which may be later interpolations.

3. Jeremy Hoop's alternative reading of the escape clause

The proximate inspiration for this post was this video from Jeremy Hoop:

Hoop's position is that Joseph Smith never taught or practiced polygamy, and that the Book of Mormon makes no allowances for it, either. He therefore has to reinterpret the escape clause so that it is not an escape clause after all. His reading is ingenious and, I think, not impossible.

Although the meaning of the escape clause seems obvious when we read it in the light of the later Mormon practice of polygamy, the verse itself is actually rather ambiguous. It reads, recall,

For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things (Jacob 2:30).

The standard reading hinges on two questionable assumptions: (1) that "command my people" means "command my people to practice polygamy," and (2) that "these things" means Jacob's denunciation of polygamy. Hoop questions both of these.

First, what does "command my people" mean? Well, this is what immediately precedes the escape clause:

Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts. Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes (Jacob 2:27-29).

The "commandments" referenced immediately before "command my people" are clearly commandments not to practice polygamy. The fact that v. 30 begins with for (rather than nevertheless) implies that it is explaining more about these same commandments, not introducing the possibility of diametrically opposite commandments in the future.

What about "these things"? As Hoop points out, this is the only reference to "things," plural, before the escape clause:

This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son (Jacob 2:23).

In Hoop's reading, the Lord is saying, "I will command my people not to practice polygamy. If I did not explicitly so command them, they would hearken unto the things which are written concerning David and Solomon and excuse themselves in committing whoredoms."

Two possible grammatical objections: First, we normally read will as having a future reference. "I will command my people" is naturally understood to refer to a possible future commandment, not to a commandment already "given unto our fathers." Second, in modern usage, except with a first-person subject, shall typically has an imperative meaning (as in "Thou shalt not kill" or "Congress shall make no law").

The second objection is easily dealt with. The Book of Mormon contains many instances of "they shall" which are clearly predictions rather than commands -- for example "they shall rebel against me" (1 Ne. 2:23), "they shall dwindle in unbelief" (2 Ne. 1:10), and many others.

Non-future use of auxiliary will is on shakier ground. It's possible in theory, but I can't find any clear examples in the King James Bible or elsewhere in the Book of Mormon.

What about "raise up seed unto me"? Doesn't that mean increasing the birthrate among the righteous? And isn't that goal better served by commanding polygamy than by banning it?

For Jeremy Hoop's take on that, we will have to turn to another ingenious element of his argument: connecting Jacob's sermon with Abinadi's.

4. Jacob's sermon as context for Noah and Abinadi?

When the wickedness of King Noah is introduced, it is clear that polygamy is one of his chief sins:

For behold, he did not keep the commandments of God, but he did walk after the desires of his own heart. And he had many wives and concubines. And he did cause his people to commit sin, and do that which was abominable in the sight of the Lord. Yea, and they did commit whoredoms and all manner of wickedness (Mosiah 11:2).

The language here is very similar to Jacob's sermon. Polygamy is "abominable" and means committing "whoredoms." In practicing polygamy, Noah "did not keep the commandments of God" -- so, as in Jacob 2, the commandment is not to practice polygamy.

Later, in preaching to Noah and his people, Abinadi quotes extensively from Isaiah, including a passage about how the Messiah "shall see his seed" (Isa. 53:10). He then expounds at length on what that means, emphasizing that the "seed" are not biological offspring:

And now what say ye? And who shall be his seed?

Behold I say unto you, that whosoever has heard the words of the prophets, yea, all the holy prophets who have prophesied concerning the coming of the Lord -- I say unto you, that all those who have hearkened unto their words, and believed that the Lord would redeem his people, and have looked forward to that day for a remission of their sins, I say unto you, that these are his seed, or they are heirs of the kingdom of God.

For these are they whose sins he has borne; these are they for whom he has died, to redeem them from their transgressions. And now, are they not his seed?

Yea, and are not the prophets, every one that has opened his mouth to prophesy, that has not fallen into transgression, I mean all the holy prophets ever since the world began? I say unto you that they are his seed (Mosiah 15:10-13).

Why does Abinadi spend so much time on this seemingly minor question of Isaiah interpretation? Why, in calling a corrupt king and his court to repentance, is it so important to clarify what exactly is meant by the prophecy that "he shall see his seed"?

Jeremy Hoop connects the dots and proposes that Noah and his priests had Jacob's anti-polygamy sermon, accepted it as scripture, and tried to justify their own practice of polygamy in precisely the same way that the Mormons would do centuries later: by invoking (and, Hoop would say, misinterpreting) the "escape clause": The Lord sometimes commands polygamy "if I will . . . raise up seed unto me." Mosiah's exegesis of Isa. 53:10 is an implicit critique of this excuse. His whole point is that raising up "seed" unto the Lord -- for he has earlier identified Isaiah's Messiah as "God himself" (Mosiah 15:1) -- has nothing to do with literal baby-making and is therefore no justification for the practice of polygamy.

This is an extremely clever reading, and I'm half convinced. On the one hand, it's quite a coincidence that Abinadi, in preaching to wicked polygamists, would hammer home this point about the Lord's "seed," the very same language that appears in Jacob's escape clause. On the other hand, it's hard to see why Abinadi would not make the connection explicit in his preaching. In fact, although the scene is set with the information that Noah and his priests are polygamists, nothing in Abinadi's preaching addresses polygamy directly. Does he expect his audience to connect the dots themselves? -- "Hey, if the seed of the Lord is not literal, that implies that our reading of the polygamy escape clause is wrong!" I would expect much more directness from Abinadi.

If Hoop is right -- if Jacob's sermon (with the escape clause) was known and accepted as scripture by Noah and his priests -- that has important implications for the status of the Small Account. As far as I know, the only place where the Book of Mormon proper appears to quote from the Small Account is in Alma's words to his son Helaman:

Yea, methought I saw, even as our father Lehi saw, God sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels, in the attitude of singing and praising their God (Alma 36:22).

This is the same language used by Nephi in his account of Lehi's Jerusalem vision:

[H]e thought he saw God sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God (1 Ne. 1:8).

The exact match with Nephi's wording, even down to "he thought he saw," strongly suggests that this is a direct quote from the Small Account. It's not quite a smoking gun, though, since Lehi's Jerusalem vision is of such central importance that it would surely have been included on the main Plates of Nephi as well, possibly even with the same wording. Even in this more secular history, you can't very well tell the story of Lehi without mentioning that vision.

Jacob's sermon, on the other hand, is of no particular historical significance but is included for spiritual reasons only. It was thus likely recorded only in the Small Account. If Hoop's reading of Abinadi is correct, it is strong evidence that some version of the Small Account was not only known to the post-Mosiah Nephites but accepted by them as authoritative scripture.