Culture: Mormon summarizes Noah’s political tactic of replacing his father’s advisors and officials with his own people. This is not an unusual procedure, not only because of personality differences, but also as a simple method of eliminating conflicts between the goals and procedures of the old and new regimes. Mormon makes it very clear that Noah introduced new ways that were so significantly different that they were sure to cause dissonance with the traditionalists. Thus, eliminating Zeniff’s priests was a logical step of realpolitik for Noah.
Understanding the logic behind removing potential political adversaries, however, does not necessarily explain the focus on priests in particular. First, as already explained, nothing like the modern separation between church and state or privatization of religion existed in the ancient world. As Abinadi’s trial shows, the priests also function as political counselors. And naturally, they presided over the community’s religious rites, which is where Mormon sees a deplorable shift from Zeniff’s practices. Clearly, Noah had to deprive any men of respected standing (such as the former priests) of a position from which to voice religious misgivings about the new practices.
But where had these ideas come from, particularly the institution of polygyny (more than one wife)? Nephite culture had been decidedly monogamous from the days of Jacob (Jacob 3:5). Nevertheless, the Nephites in this region are now, for the second time, engaging in polygyny. Furthermore, in both cases the “whoredoms” included wives and concubines. Because multiple wives are more costly than one wife, the text links wealth and polygyny. Wealth provides the economic platform that allows polygyny.
Economics apart, however, this repetition of polygyny raises a question about the apparent ease with which Noah’s society accepted the practice. The modern United States enjoys a level of affluence that would make polygyny economically feasible in many cases (certainly the contemporary practice of sometimes-frequent divorce and remarriage cannot be considered more cost-effective by comparison), but a very strong cultural bias forbids the practice. It remains limited as an underground, illegal practice with religious motivations that overcome the more common social prohibition. The Zeniffites should have had a similar cultural bias against polygyny. However, they lived in the same area where the Nephites of Jacob’s time had also overcome their cultural prejudices and adopted polygyny. The most plausible explanation is that the other peoples of that land not only had multiple wives but that having multiple wives conferred economic benefits that Noah and his people deemed desirable. (See commentary accompanying Jacob 2:32–24 for the link between multiple wives and economic gain.)
Again the parallel to Jacob’s time is instructive. Accumulating wealth in ancient societies typically depended on exchanging goods outside the community, thus providing access to items that were otherwise rare and valuable. While Noah’s tax list includes foodstuffs, the rest of the taxables are workable metals. How would they increase his wealth if he exchanged them only within the community? Trading the metal back to those who had yielded it up in taxes would have been absurd; it would have no relative value to them. It seems an unavoidable conclusion that Noah’s wealth came from trading with surrounding groups, presumably the Lamanites. Apparently he also traded in ideas, adopting polygyny and possibly other concepts as well.