This essay began as a Twitter thread in 2020, and in recent months, I’ve really wanted to flesh out some of the thinking I first wrote about there. I started slowly drafting this essay as a blog post in October 2023, but when I learned that Element: A Journal of Mormon Philosophy and Theology was being rebooted, I decided to try submitting this there as a scholarly essay instead of just something that would sit on my website.

I recently got a rejection on that submission, which I have mixed feelings about. At the end of the day, the reviewer was right that I didn’t really engage with the philosophy literature, so I can’t really blame the editor for rejecting the paper as not substantive enough for the journal. That said, the reviewer’s accusations of “presentism” because I dared argue that one can develop LGBT-affirming readings of the Book of Mormon struck me as doctrinal concerns wrapped up in the veneer of scholarship. I also strongly disagree with the reviewer’s suggestion that topics like emotional hurt are too irrational for a discussion of philosophy and ethics. I’m confident that there’s plenty of feminist writing that would argue differently… but again, I don’t really know (and certainly didn’t cite) the literature, so even though the reviewer is wrong, that’s still kind of on me.

This was always less of a philosophical piece than a reading of scripture, and I don’t think it’s perfect, so I wouldn’t mind having it go through a better-suited peer review. I toyed with the idea of submitting this somewhere else, like the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, but since this began as a blog post (and before that, a Twitter thread), I figured I’d just go back to that and welcome critique in a less formal, more public way. That said, I’ve spent too much time on this essay already, so I haven’t really bothered to reformat it from how I had it written as a journal submission. It’s got footnotes galore, they’re in Chicago (even though I’m #TeamAPA), and it keeps the tone that I chose for the journal instead of what I might have written with a blog post in mind.

Anyway, here it is! I’m fond of the reading that I’ve proposed here, so I hope this finds an audience, but I don’t know that it’s perfect, so I certainly welcome feedback.

Introduction

Someone turning to the Book of Mormon to inform their sexual ethic would likely consult the sermon given by the Nephite prophet Jacob in the second chapter of the book bearing his name. Indeed, LDS and RLDS¹ figures have often referred to Jacob 2 when making arguments about the nature of sexual ethics. For example, LDS apostle Mark E. Petersen quoted from Jacob 2’s comments in a 1969 address condemning the sexual revolution of that decade². Likewise, Jacob’s condemnation of polygamy was a favorite resource for 20th century RLDS critics of their church’s policies (and, with D&C 150, scripture) allowing polygamous men from the Global South to be baptized so long as they committed to take no more wives.³ In both cases, Jacob 2 served as a prooftext for defending against the perceived threat of a more liberal sexual ethic.

Yet, careful readings of Jacob’s temple sermon suggest that its sexual ethic is more nuanced than a generic call to chastity (or even a simple condemnation of non-monogamous relationships). Perhaps most notably, a number of writers have found feminist themes in Jacob’s sermon. Indeed, Fatimah Salleh and Margaret Olsen Hemming describe Jacob’s sermon as containing “some of the most overtly feminist messages of the Book of Mormon.”⁴ Carol Lynn Pearson points to the polygamous husbands of this passage as one piece of evidence (among several) of an “anti-female bias evident among the Nephites” that may have been “one of the numerous causes of their downfall.”⁵ Similarly, Deidre Nicole Green interprets “Jacob’s references to women’s chastity” as a reference “to women’s sexual agency.”⁶

These authors invite us to see Jacob’s sexual ethic less as a self-evident list of sexual prohibitions and more as the natural consequence of a deeper commitment to gender equality. Put otherwise, it is possible to read Jacob as promoting a commandment-based ethic that gives a binary evaluation of sexual behavior based on a straightforward rule; however, these authors suggest that Jacob’s sexual ethic is instead principle-based, in that it evaluates a given sexual behavior in a given context based on how it corresponds to an underlying set of ethical values. Commandment- and principle-based sexual ethics do not necessarily disagree with each other in their conclusions; Jacob’s condemnation of polygamy could have been (and, indeed, was) expressed in terms of either straightforward divine prohibition or contextual consideration of the experience of Nephite women. However, a principle-based sexual ethic can avoid oversimplification associated with the emphasis of strict obedience at the expense of any contextual considerations. For example, Brigham Young University officials have sometimes punished students who have reported sexual assault,⁷ prioritizing prohibitions of sexual contact over students’ testimony of being abused. Likewise, those who advocated for requiring polygamous converts to the RLDS Church to divorce all but one wife overlooked the problems this would create for abandoned women and children.⁸

Inspired by these readings of Jacob, my goal in this essay is to offer further nuance to Jacob’s temple sermon and to ask how that nuance might inform the sexual ethic that individuals and denominations that read the Book of Mormon draw from it. Because the reading of scripture is an unavoidably subjective act, I begin by describing the assumptions and perspectives I bring to interpreting the Book of Mormon. This not only introduces my essay but also sets the stage for my next section, where I will describe Jacob’s approach to scripture and argue that it is key to understanding the sexual ethic he establishes during his temple sermon. Then, I will address the temple sermon itself, demonstrating how Jacob there reinterprets scripture and rethinks the sexual ethic of the Nephite religion. Finally, I will consider ways in which Jacob’s example might be relevant for Book of Mormon readers today.

My Approach to Scripture

I write from the perspective of someone who long practiced in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints but who now practices in Community of Christ. As a result of my history, I am most familiar with (and remain sympathetic to) LDS approaches to the Book of Mormon. Furthermore, due to demographic differences and ecclesiastical evolution, there has quite simply been more writing on the Book of Mormon from LDS perspectives than from RLDS/Community of Christ perspectives, especially in recent years. While I do not claim to have read all scholarship on the Book of Mormon, my thinking is largely shaped by LDS writers—if not institutional perspectives. Indeed, my core theological commitments are presently closer to Community of Christ than they are to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and this also shapes how I read all scripture, including the Book of Mormon. In recognition of my present denominational affiliation, I use the lightly-modernized Revised Authorized Version of the Book of Mormon—first published by the RLDS Church in 1966—as the source for quotes and primary verse references (though I also include LDS verse references for broad accessibility).

I also write from the assumption that the figures in the Book of Mormon have consistent personalities and underlying motivations. This is not to argue for the historicity of the Book of Mormon or even that we should bracket questions about historicity; indeed, I acknowledge that I am skeptical of the historicity of much Restoration and Christian scripture. Nonetheless, I believe—like Bruce Lindgren—that the Book of Mormon “has the capacity to illuminate and communicate the gospel”.⁹ More to the point I am making here, I am convinced by the writing of several authors that the Book of Mormon has important, valuable lessons to teach when one treats its characters as real people and approaches the text from a narrative lens.

Along similar lines, I assume that the Nephite scriptural canon is functionally identical to the relevant portions of the Hebrew Bible¹⁰ as we know them today. Although this assumption stands in tension with both academic scholarship (which places the ultimate redaction of the Hebrew Bible after Lehi’s purported exodus from Jerusalem) and the Book of Mormon narrative (which suggests that the original biblical text may differ in important ways from today’s authoritative text), this seems to me the most practical way to understand the Nephite canon referenced in the narrative. In short, with a few notable exceptions, we have no way of knowing how the texts on the brass plates might have differed from the texts in our Bibles. Although it is tempting to use this ambiguity as a free pass for supporting any interpretation we could come up with, it seems more responsible—despite the underlying tensions—to assume similarity unless there is a compelling reason to think otherwise.

Jacob’s Approach to Scripture

Just as I bring my own perspectives and assumptions to my interpretation of the Book of Mormon, Jacob seems to bring an intentional perspective to his treatment of scripture. Importantly, Jacob appears to share this perspective with his older brother Nephi,¹¹ one of the most prominent narrators in the Book of Mormon. Later in the essay, I will demonstrate how this perspective helps us understand the principle-based aspects of the sexual ethic that Jacob presents in his temple sermon. Thus, to better help us understand this perspective—and demonstrate that it is a key theme in his ministry—I consider Jacob’s treatment of scripture in his first recorded sermon to the Nephites (II Nephi 5-7; LDS 2 Nephi 6-10) and his debate with Sherem, his final recorded act of public ministry (Jacob 5; LDS Jacob 7).

Jacob’s First Recorded Sermon

Readers of the Book of Mormon are first introduced to the themes of Jacob’s ministry in the record kept by his older brother. Indeed, as noted in Hardy’s Annotated Book of Mormon¹², Jacob begins both this sermon and his temple sermon by voicing concerns about “anxiety” and the “welfare of… souls” (II Nephi 5:5-6; LDS 2 Nephi 6:3; Jacob 2:3; LDS Jacob 2:3), already demonstrating a certain consistency in Jacob’s ministry throughout the Book of Mormon. As I will demonstrate in this section—and the next—this consistency also includes a willingness to reinterpret distant scripture for his immediate audience. Indeed, early in this first sermon, Jacob borrows a phrase more closely associated with his brother to explain to his audience that the Book of Isaiah “may be likened unto you” (II Nephi 5:14; LDS 2 Nephi 6:5). Jacob’s reliance on Isaiah throughout this sermon clearly echoes Nephi’s same reliance on these texts; more importantly for my purposes, Jacob joins Nephi in what Hardy describes as “providing creative interpretations of Isaiah’s words.”¹³

Yet, Jacob’s willingness to reinterpret scripture can be far more aggressive than a midrash-like reinterpretation of Isaiah. Let us consider, for example, II Nephi 6:59 (LDS 2 Nephi 9:28), where Jacob condemns the “learned” who “think they are wise” and therefore “hearken not to the counsel of God… supposing they know of themselves.” At least in LDS circles, this verse is popularly understood as an elevation of the word of God over human learning—and could therefore seem to support a scriptural literalism that resists reinterpretation. However, this condemnation of the learned is situated in a series of ten “woe” statements pronounced by Jacob between verses 56 and 72 (LDS 9:27-38).¹⁴ More specifically, it follows the first of these “woe” statements and should therefore be understood as an extension of Jacob’s criticism of “him that has the law given, that has all the commandments of God, like us, and that transgresses them” (II Nephi 6:56; LDS 2 Nephi 9:27).

Reading this single verse within the broader context allows for a reading in which the “learned” that Jacob is criticizing are synonymous with those who have “the law given” to them. In this reading, Jacob’s critique is not aimed at those who disregard scripture; rather, like Amos, Micah, Jesus, and other prophetic figures, he is targeting those who are so confident that “they know of themselves” what God has previously commanded through established scripture that they fail to “hearken… to the counsel of God” asking them in the present (or elsewhere in scripture) to do something more—or something else. Likewise, Jacob’s concession that “to be learned is good, if they hearken to the counsels of God” (II Nephi 6:61; 2 Nephi 9:29) seems to encourage a deep understanding of established scripture so long as one remains open to further expressions of God’s will—even those that might challenge an established understanding. Just as Jacob’s reinterpretation of Isaiah echoes his older brother’s, this reading of Jacob’s sermon would be consistent with Nephi’s later admonition that latter-day believers must be open to additional scripture (see II Nephi 12; LDS 2 Nephi 29). Indeed, Nephi’s admonition echoes language from both Jacob’s sermon and the two prophets’ extensive quotations from Isaiah, further emphasizing how important the reinterpretation of scripture is in their ministries.¹⁵

Jacob’s Debate With Sherem

The perspective on scripture that Jacob lays out early in his ministry is also present in one of the final events that he records by his own hand. In Jacob 5 (LDS Jacob 7), a man named Sherem emerges to challenge the prophet; in doing so, he embodies the abstract, hypothetical figure whom Jacob had criticized years before. Indeed, Jacob repeats the word “learned” to describe Sherem (Jacob 5:6; LDS 7:4). In keeping with the reading I previously proposed, this is not a reference to a secular disregard for scripture but rather a deep, if rigid, familiarity with holy text. Indeed, as an ardent defender of the Law of Moses, Sherem also mirrors Jacob’s description of “him who has the law given” (II Nephi 6:56; LDS 2 Nephi 9:27). Where Jacob and Sherem disagree is with the relationship of that law to a future Christ. For Sherem, the scriptures have nothing to say about Jesus; for Jacob, “none of the prophets have written, nor prophesied, save they have spoken concerning this Christ” (Jacob 5:19; LDS 7:11).

It is true that Christians have read Jesus into the Hebrew Bible for as long as there have been Christians. Nonetheless, it is important—both for the argument of this article and for avoiding anti-Jewish practice in Christianity—to understand that Jacob’s insistence on this point is best understood as another example of his willingness to aggressively reinterpret scripture in light of new revelation.¹⁶ To take but one important example,¹⁷ despite Matthew’s insistence that the conception of Christ was foretold in Isaiah, the original Hebrew text more accurately speaks of a “young woman [who] is [already] with child” (Isaiah 7:7, NRSV) rather than of any future virgin. Indeed, it is particularly relevant to my argument that “the language and theology of the New Testament writers are indebted far more to the Septuagint [i.e., the Greek translation] than to the [original] Hebrew Bible.” If we take the Book of Mormon narrative seriously, Jacob would have been reading the prophets in Hebrew rather than Greek, making his Christ-centered reading of these texts even more tenuous than that of the New Testament authors.

Of course, this does not mean that there is no value in reading scripture through the lens of Christ. Jacob’s treatment of Sherem is harsh once we realize that his evaluation of scripture is based on personal conviction rather than objective analysis,¹⁸ and we must also wrestle with how an insistence on reading Christ into the Hebrew Bible has helped fuel horrific anti-Jewish and anti-Semitic acts and attitudes. Nonetheless, Jacob’s reinterpretation of scripture through a Christian lens can still be instructive for us. For example, in Doctrine and Covenants 163:7b-c, members of Community of Christ are counseled that “God’s nature, as revealed in Jesus Christ and affirmed by the Holy Spirit, provides the ultimate standard by which any portion of scripture should be interpreted and applied. It is not pleasing to God when any passage of scripture is used to diminish or oppress races, genders, or classes of human beings.” Community of Christ’s official Statement on Scripture¹⁹ likewise teaches that “[s]cripture’s authority is derived from the model of Christ, who came to be a servant (Mark 10:45). Therefore, the authority of scripture is not the authority to oppress, control, or dominate.” Although much depends on how one understands Christ, there are ways in which deliberately reading Christ into the text may be productive; in fact, this approach to reading scripture through a Christian lens explicitly invites us to push back against the original text in careful, considerate ways.

Jacob’s Temple Sermon

Up to this point, I have demonstrated that Jacob shows a clear interest in reinterpreting established scripture. Indeed, Jacob’s reinterpretation can be so aggressive that it borders on the crude fundamentalism of those who would refuse to ever reinterpret scripture: Both parties are overly insistent that there is only one valid reading of a given text. Even in his overenthusiasm, Jacob’s approach to scripture can be exemplary; however, one might wonder why so much of this essay has focused on this aspect of his ministry given my purported focus on this Nephite prophet’s sexual ethic.

Fortunately, Jacob himself provides the answer to this question. As he begins the portion of his temple sermon that is focused on sexual ethics, Jacob bemoans the “grosser crimes” (Jacob 2:31; LDS 2:23) of his audience before announcing “thus says the Lord, ‘This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures’” (Jacob 2:32; LDS 2:23). Although Jacob immediately transitions to a discussion of sexual ethics, it is noteworthy that he begins this discussion by warning against misusing scripture. Salleh and Olsen Hemming describe Jacob as “explain[ing] what is even worse than what went before [i.e., the Nephites’ seeking for wealth and oppressing the poor]: the Nephites are manipulating scripture to excuse their own sinful behavior.”²⁰

While I am sympathetic to this description, I am not sure that the Nephites are manipulating scripture. In the sections that follow, I offer another reading of Jacob’s treatment of scripture and sexual ethic: First, I will describe how he insists on a reading of scripture that does not hold up to scrutiny. Second, I will argue that although scripture does not support Jacob, he clearly draws on certain principles to establish a new sexual ethic better suited for his context. Both sections further demonstrate the aggressive reinterpretation of scripture described earlier in this paper as characteristic of Jacob’s ministry. In a final section, I will discuss the possibility that Jacob is reinterpreting not only scripture but also prophetic precedent.

Jacob Gets Scripture Wrong

As Jacob continues his temple sermon, he reports God’s condemnation of the Nephites’ “seek[ing] to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms because of the things which were written concerning David and Solomon his son” (Jacob 2:32; LDS 2:23). In short, as becomes clear later in the passage, Nephite men have begun (or are at least considering) taking additional wives and concubines and are turning to Biblical precedent to justify their decision. According to Jacob, David and Solomon’s decisions were “abominable” before God (Jacob 2:33; LDS 2:24),²¹ and Nephite men have no scriptural precedent to turn to. However, while the Nephite men in this story are clearly in the wrong, it is not clear that they have misinterpreted the scriptures. Indeed, Wil Gafney writes that after Lamech takes two wives in Genesis 4:19—“Lamech-style partnership (polygamy), rather than Eve/Adam-style monogamy, becomes normative.”²² At best, Gafney continues, God is silent about polygamy. Thus, despite Jacob’s insistence that God condemns the Nephite men’s interpretation of scripture, commands monogamy (at least as a general rule), and sees David and Solomon’s polygamy as sinful, there is considerable evidence to the contrary.

In fact, while Jacob implies that Nephite advocates for polygamy have been referencing David and Solomon in particular, there are far more compelling passages that they could have invoked to make their case. Just after Moses receives (one version of) the Ten Commandments, God’s next conversation with him is to establish laws that govern—not forbid!—slavery (see Exodus 21:1-11). Implicit in these laws is divine permission for a man to purchase a woman as a slave to whom he has sexual access—and to purchase additional women if, as described by Robert Alter, “he finds anything about [the first woman] that disinclines him to keep her as a sexual partner.”²³ Although Jacob references God promising that the Nephite men “shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people” (Jacob 2:42; LDS 2:33), there are no explicit references to Nephite advocacy for sex slavery in Jacob 2. And yet, modern readers of the Bible—like Jacob—must wrestle with the horrific truth that there is clear scriptural precedent for this; if Nephite men are asking for “mere” polygamy, they are asking for far less than what scripture allows men to do in the name of satisfying their sexual desires.

In short, Jacob’s insistence that the scriptures are on his side when he preaches monogamy does not seem to hold up to even a cursory review of what the Hebrew Bible has to say about polygamy. Rather, sexual laws in Exodus 21 alone clearly allow for a man to have multiple sexual partners—not to mention exercise ownership over those partners. To be clear, I am not suggesting that Jacob ought to be deferential to the Hebrew Bible’s troubling sexual ethic! Rather, I suggest that his failure to truly wrestle with the conflict between scriptural precedent and his teaching does his audience (whether present at the temple or reading his sermon today) a double disservice. First, it papers over the contradictions in scripture that all believers must recognize and respond to; second, it conceals some of the lessons that emerge when one understands that his sexual ethic is a reinterpretation of God’s law for his time and place.

Jacob Defies Scripture

If Jacob obscures the relationship between the scriptures and the sexual ethic that he promotes, he is more straightforward with an underlying principle of that sexual ethic. In the case of his temple sermon, Jacob’s aggressive reinterpretation of scripture is motivated by concern for the harm and hurt caused by application of the sexual ethic more readily apparent in the Hebrew Bible. Countering the Nephite men who claim to have scripture on their side, Jacob describes the “sorrow,” “mourning” (Jacob 2:40; LDS 2:31), “cries” (Jacob 2:41; LDS 2:32), “broken… hearts,” and “lost… confidence” (Jacob 2:46; LDS 2:35) of the Nephite women and children who have suffered the burden of their husbands and fathers’ application of scripture. Even as he conceals that he is offering a reinterpretation, Jacob provides a compelling criterion for when scripture should be reinterpreted; presaging the standard set in D&C 161, Jacob refuses to allow his audience to “diminish or oppress” others, even when scripture seemingly grants them permission to do so.

In fact, as Salleh and Olsen Hemming have noted, Jacob interprets the Lehite exodus from Jerusalem in “overtly feminist” terms.²⁴ Indeed, Jacob’s references to “sorrow” and “mourning” are not necessarily focused on Nephite women but rather on “the daughters of [God’s] people in the land of Jerusalem, and in all the lands of [God’s] people” (Jacob 2:40; LDS 2:31). While this wording also acknowledges that “damaging marital relationships occur globally,”²⁵ Jacob’s references to Jerusalem—and to God’s leading Lehi’s family away (see Jacob 2:34; LDS 2:25, Jacob 2:41; LDS 2:32)— particularly frames this event in terms of freeing women from the hurt and harm imposed on them within a broader religious culture because of perceived scriptural command. Indeed, Jacob describes this exodus as God leading “the fair daughters of this people” out of Jerusalem (Jacob 2:42; LDS 2:32). According to Jacob’s account, it is not that “God led Nephi and Lehi out of Jerusalem and the women followed” but rather that “God hears [women’s] cries and leads them with revelation”²⁶—even if that revelation conflicts with how men read scripture.

Does Jacob Defy Prophets?

Jacob’s account of the Lehite exodus is remarkable for how it stands in tension with his brother Nephi’s telling of the same story. Although Nephi is elsewhere eager to critique the people of Jerusalem (e.g., II Nephi 11; LDS 2 Nephi 25), he never accuses them of the sexual oppression that Jacob mentions in his own critiques. Indeed, Jacob’s explanation that “commandments [against polygamy] were given to our father Lehi” (Jacob 2:44; LDS 2:34) would reasonably come as a surprise to a reader of the Book of Mormon, given that Nephi says nothing about these commandments. Because we have already seen ample evidence of Jacob’s fondness for aggressive reinterpretation, we may be tempted to assume that Jacob is reading into his family’s history feminist messages that were not originally present. However, we have also seen evidence of considerable overlap between the ministries of Jacob and Nephi, including a shared interest in reinterpretation and in the writings of the prophet Isaiah. Why, then, do the brothers differ on this point?

Although there is no way to definitively answer this question, Grant Hardy offers two observations about Nephi that inform the possible reading I will offer here. First, based on a number of clues, including Jacob’s ambiguous statement that Nephi “anointed a man to be [his successor as] king” (Jacob 1:9; LDS 1:9), Hardy suggests the possibility that although “Nephi had children and descendants… perhaps he only had daughters.”²⁷ Nephi seems to have been anticipating his eventual kingship since before his marriage (e.g., I Nephi 1:94; 1 Nephi 4:29); did he express concern during his father’s lifetime that his wife was only producing daughters when he could only imagine a son as heir? I suggest the possibility that Nephi was a sort of Henry VIII figure, one who never considered divorce or execution but who shared with the English monarch the belief that another wife might be the answer to his problems.

While speculative, this reading is reinforced by Hardy’s suggestion that Nephi as narrator is less-than-forthcoming about awkward interactions with his father. Most notably, Lehi has nothing to say to Nephi after his violent encounter with Laban, and Nephi seems to be the only one of the men of his generation whose blessing is not recorded before the patriarch’s death.²⁸ In both cases, Hardy compellingly argues that Nephi may have wanted to preserve his own reputation by skipping over his father’s criticism of him in both encounters. Is this why Nephi does not record Lehi’s commandment against polygamy? After all, if Laman or Lemuel had been would-be polygamists, it is difficult to imagine Nephi missing the opportunity to further criticize his brothers. Yet, Jacob 2:55 (LDS 3:6) clarifies that Lamanite society is monogamous; indeed, much of the rhetorical force of this part of Jacob’s temple sermon is that for all the Lamanites’ supposed wickedness, they get this commandment right. In contrast, Nephi’s failure to record Lehi’s commandment (or to frame his family’s exodus from Jerusalem in the same terms as his brother) suggests a different set of rhetorical goals—one that, consistent with Hardy’s observations, avoids bringing up old shames.

Thinking of Nephi in this way could provide additional context to the temple sermon. If the revered king were known to privately speculate on whether polygamy was really all that bad, it is unsurprising that the followers who took his name upon them might be open to reviving the practice. Jacob’s exasperation that his audience has forgotten Lehi’s commandment could conceal a deeper frustration with his brother for muddying the waters on this point. At the very least, for all of the similarities between Jacob and Nephi, Jacob is emphasizing themes in his ministry that his brother does not seem to have prioritized; if, more dramatically, Nephi had sympathies toward polygamy, Jacob finds himself in the unenviable position of defying not only scripture but also his immediate predecessor as prophet.

Implications of Jacob’s Sexual Ethic for Book of Mormon Readers

Up to this point, my purpose in this paper has been to complement other authors in providing a more nuanced look at the sexual ethic that Jacob presents in his temple sermon. Returning to terms I used when introducing this paper, I argue that although Jacob seems to speak in terms of a commandment-based ethic that simply and unwaveringly prohibits certain sexual behaviors, he ultimately advances a principle-based ethic that evaluates sexual behavior according to established values applied in a specific context. In short, Jacob’s advocacy of chastity and condemnation of polygamy are not abstract or arbitrary instructions that demand compliance simply by being commandments. Rather, they are the natural consequence in his context of two underlying principles: first, avoid harm and hurt; second, be willing to rethink scriptural and prophetic precedent in the name of that avoidance.²⁹

It is important to acknowledge that Jacob’s sexual ethic is clearly incomplete, in that these two principles are not themselves sufficient for defining sexual behavior. For example, two lovers deliberately carrying on an affair behind the backs of their respective spouses (who remain loving and faithful) might invoke genuine hurt they would feel by breaking off the relationship to justify their defying of an established sexual ethic. Yet, I do not find that argument compelling in the same way I find Jacob’s defiance of precedent to be compelling. Besides the question of the hurt caused to the unwitting spouses, I expect that a better developed sexual ethic would also take into consideration principles such as commitment, consent, and agency (to name but three). Whereas Jacob respects commitment, consent, and agency in his reinterpretation (if implicitly), it is not clear to me that these hypothetical lovers have in theirs.

Even if insufficient on their own, Jacob’s two principles provide opportunities for readers of the Book of Mormon to think about their individual and denominational sexual ethics in more nuanced ways. In the remainder of this section, I will briefly describe some such opportunities. I will keep this description largely hypothetical and intentionally refrain from advocating for specific teachings or policies within specific denominations. After all, I am only familiar with two of the dozens of religious movements that recognize the Book of Mormon as scripture; it is not my place to dictate doctrine or policy in either of those movements; and while I have strong opinions on some of these possibilities, I am still thinking through others. Nonetheless, I believe in Bruce Lindgren’s invitation to “ask questions and listen to [the Book of Mormon’s] responses,”³⁰ and I believe that Jacob’s responses are particularly worth listening to in the context of sexual ethics.

Rethinking the Importance of Legal Marriage

To begin, I will consider an ethic that insists that any sexual behavior outside of a legal marriage is inherently immoral. There are several ways of running afoul of this commandment-based sexual ethic, ranging from two strangers having a one-night stand to common-law spouses whose immigration status prevents them from being legally married in their country of residence. Many Book of Mormon readers have drawn on some kind of scriptural or prophetic precedent (some clearer than others) to justify a commandment-based declaration that all these behaviors are unethical. However, this example demonstrates how Jacob’s first principle of avoiding hurt and harm is helpful for determining when to apply his second principle of reinterpreting scriptural and prophetic statements. A carefully developed sexual ethic drawing from Jacob could still discourage casual sexual relationships where emotional commitment and, therefore, emotional hurt are less salient factors; yet, the same ethic might still determine that it is permissible to allow for clearly committed but not legally binding relationships whose prevention or dissolution in the name of obedience would cause greater hurt. Indeed, while demonstrating the value of a principle-based approach, this example also suggests the insufficiency of these two principles on their own. Beyond the question of hurt and harm, the possibility that a sexual ethic might treat differently a one-night stand and a common-law marriage necessarily asks about the importance of an underlying principle of commitment; however, this principle is not explicitly articulated by Jacob in his temple sermon.

Rethinking LGBTQ+ Relationships and Identities

Perhaps the most compelling contemporary application of Jacob’s temple sermon in this way is with respect to LGBTQ+ identities and relationships. Most readers of the Book of Mormon espouse a sexual ethic that excludes as illegitimate any romantic or sexual relationship that is not between people of different sexes who respectively conform to certain culturally approved expressions of gender. While some readers might downplay the harm and hurt experienced by queer individuals (including their co-religionists) as a result of this sexual ethic, it seems to me that this harm and hurt are well-documented and, therefore, undeniable. Other readers might apologetically acknowledge this harm and hurt but insist that prophetic and scriptural teaching³¹ must nevertheless be unfailingly adhered to in developing a sexual ethic. Yet, according to the reading I have proposed here, the lesson of Jacob’s temple sermon is clearly the opposite: It was the painful experiences of Nephite women that caused Jacob to introduce a new sexual ethic diminished that pain—even if it meant defying scriptural and prophetic precedent. Thus, Jacob insists that readers of the Book of Mormon respond to—and act on—the harm and hurt caused by their sexual ethic.

Rethinking an Insistence on Monogamy

One interesting consequence of my separating the deeper principles undergirding Jacob’s sexual ethic from the surface-level commandments present therein is the way that the former can be read against the latter. That is, if Jacob’s insistence on monogamy is the natural application of his underlying principles to that particular context, there remains the possibility that those underlying principles can be applied in a different context to reinterpret Jacob’s surface-level insistence on monogamy. To be clear: Polygamy as practiced by the Nephite men in Jacob 2 and by other men in various Restoration contexts has clearly caused harm and hurt and can therefore be seen as unethical despite scriptural or prophetic justification. Yet, a deeper reading of Jacob 2 requires Book of Mormon readers to consider the harm and hurt that a context-blind insistence on monogamy could cause within relationships and families that do not conform to this teaching. Furthermore, this deeper reading even leaves open the possibility that a non-monogamous relationship (whether polygynous, polyandrous, or otherwise polyamorous) that does not cause harm and hurt could be recognized as ethical despite Jacob’s insistence on monogamy. As previously noted, Jacob’s argument in his temple sermon is incomplete—establishing other principles of sexual ethics would be necessary for distinguishing acceptable non-monogamous relationships from unacceptable ones. Yet, if Jacob’s underlying argument is, indeed, based on underlying principles rather than straightforward commandments, his sexual ethic is perhaps not as universally insistent on monogamy as has traditionally been assumed.

Conclusion

In a 2003 address to the Mormon History Association, Grant McMurray—then serving as Community of Christ’s prophet-president—warned Book of Mormon readers against “replacing a stifling biblical fundamentalism… with one of our own only somewhat expanded variety.”³² McMurray’s point was that individuals and denominations who accept Restoration scripture’s radical challenging of the established Christian canon miss the point if they are unwilling to challenge themselves the teachings seemingly established in those same Restoration scriptures. In this article, I have hoped to demonstrate that a similar teaching is found within the Book of Mormon itself. Jacob does not call attention to the fact that he is reinterpreting established scriptural teachings in his temple sermon—I wonder if he is himself too uncomfortable with the idea to do so. Nonetheless, as I have argued, Jacob’s teachings at the Nephite temple must be understood as a deliberate act of reinterpretation—and as one element of a broader pattern of reinterpretation throughout his ministry.

Jacob’s lesson on reinterpreting scripture is particularly important as a model for rethinking sexual ethics. Many contemporary readers of the Book of Mormon—and even more readers of the Bible—appeal to a purportedly straightforward and consistent scriptural precedent to uphold a “traditional” sexual ethic, even if that ethic can be demonstrated to cause harm and hurt. Jacob invites us to see things differently; indeed, few of the Book of Mormon or Bible readers who argue for that “traditional” ethic would disagree with Jacob’s rejection of the Hebrew Bible’s permissiveness in terms of polygamy and sex slavery. Understanding that this rejection is a reinterpretation invites us to further follow Jacob’s example by engaging in more principled reinterpretation of scripture and rethinking of sexual ethic for the contexts that we live and worship in. Perhaps more than anything, it is Jacob’s sensitivity to the harm and hurt experienced by his people that ought to capture the attention of Book of Mormon readers. He gives us prophetic permission to prioritize that sensitivity above tradition and precedent and thereby opens the door for us to practice our discipleship in new ways.

• macro
• Communities
• Book of Mormon
• sexual ethics
• LGBTQ
• marriage
• Deirdre Nicole Green
• Carol Lynn Pearson
• Fatimah Salleh
• Margaret Olsen Hemming
• Grant Hardy
• Grant McMurray
• Element: A Journal of Mormon Philosophy and Theology
• peer review
• scripture
• Journal of Book of Mormon Studies