Redaction: In the 1830 edition, this verse would have followed the preceding verse with no break because it continues the same sermon.
Culture: Jacob now explicitly readdresses his audience. This is a mixed audience. Present are both the prideful rich who have been the subject of his admonitions and those who have been their victims. Jacob has been admonishing men apparently guilty of two crimes, the second worse than the first.
The first crime was social differentiation, demonstrated through the wearing of costly apparel. The second involved polygyny, with men committing whoredoms and women being led away captive. In this part of his sermon, Jacob addresses the “pure in heart.”
In this group are three types of people. First would be the women and children whom he has just described as brokenhearted (Jacob 2:35). The second type might be those whom the wealthy deride as social inferiors (Jacob 2:13). The third would be any righteous who are not included in the two persecuted groups. While any or all of these three might be meant, understanding this group is important because Jacob tells us that they are in danger of “destruction.”
Who wants to destroy the pure in heart? It is significant that the only solution Jacob proposes is prayer. Of course prayer is always a worthy suggestion, but is there no other recourse against imminent destruction? What about the law? Is Jacob speaking rhetorically? He uses the theme of destruction rhetorically in verse 3, but that does not seem to be the case here. Those threatened with destruction should invoke Yahweh’s protection, but Jacob does not lament that anyone has broken the law. Naturally, given the stage of their social evolution there would be nothing equivalent to a police force in a village. But even without a police force societies have mechanisms for enforcing social order. Why are they not invoked?
Presumably, Jacob would use any means available to prevent physical destruction, but he could not invoke governmental authority outside of the city of Nephi. There is no regional government at this point. Each village and city is autonomous, although smaller hamlets might affiliate with a nearby village. The village of Nephi has no legal authority over other villages.
The “pure in heart” must pray for deliverance because they have no legal recourse. Perhaps war might be an option; but if the Nephite women sent to foreign villages are confirming trading treaties, then there would be little legal or moral support for war. Those receiving the women would be contracting legal marriages with them, according to their culture.
In sum, according to this scenario, the women are an endangered group of those who are “pure in heart” and whose only recourse is prayer, but it does not adequately explain the “destruction.” In what way would they be destroyed? Why would a man take a plural wife with the purpose of destroying her? If the marriages are trade-related transactions, then destroying the bride would not only alienate the trading partner but also waste the economic value that she represents. Thus, the “destruction” is not physical. It must be spiritual. By being taken away from their village, the women will be prevented from following their religious practices. At this point, there is no indication that any other village practices the Nephite religion.