One wonders here if the preposition in near the end of this series of conjuncts isn’t a mistake for the conjunction and. The original manuscript clearly reads in, but it is possible that the scribe, Oliver Cowdery, could have misheard an original and as the preposition in, especially since the and in context would have normally been pronounced as a syllabic n. Further evidence for emending in to and here in Alma 37:27 can be found when we consider all other cases in the text where abomination(s) is conjoined with a preceding noun. Except for this case in Alma 37:27, abomination(s) is always conjoined with the preceding noun by an and (63 times in all). There is no other case where abomination(s) is headed by the preposition in so that the resulting prepositional phrase postmodifies a preceding noun (as in “their agreements in their secret abominations”). In other words, we expect abomination(s) to occur as a part of a conjunctive list. In fact, elsewhere in Alma 37 alone there are eight occurrences of abominations in conjunctive lists, and in each instance abominations is conjoined using and:
But there are some problems with this analysis. First of all, here in Alma 37:27 abominations occurs with an infrequent word, agreement; there are two occurrences of the singular agreement in the text (in Helaman 9:20 and 3 Nephi 7:14) and only one of the plural agreements (here in Alma 37:27). When we examine the 63 examples of conjoined abomination(s) in the text, we find that abomination(s) is typically conjoined with words like wickedness, iniquities, murders, and whoredoms, words that specifically refer to evil acts. But here in verse 27 (according to the current text), Alma commands his son to retain or keep back “all their oaths and their covenants and their agreements in their secret abominations”. Notice that oaths, covenants, and agreements all refer to promises made by members of these secret societies. In other words, Alma is telling Helaman to keep these ritualistic promises hidden from the people. There is nothing inherently evil in oaths, covenants, and agreements, but there is in wickedness, iniquities, murders, and whoredoms. Similarly, later on in verse 27, Helaman is also commanded to retain or keep back the signs and wonders of these secret societies: “yea and all their signs and their wonders ye shall retain from this people”. And signs and wonders may be considered neutral terms (in principle, at least). Thus Alma is commanding his son to keep back the specific information regarding the rituals of these secret combinations.
Secondly, when we consider the eight instances in Alma 37 (listed above) where abominations is conjoined by means of an and with a preceding noun, the text states that the actual evil acts of these secret combinations will be made known. In other words, the Lord wants their evil abominations to be revealed to the people, not retained or kept back. In fact, this distinction is specifically referred to:
Thus in verse 27 the word abominations should not be conjoined with oaths, covenants, and agreements. Alma is not asking Helaman to keep back the knowledge of their abominations, only their system of secrecy. The critical text will therefore maintain in Alma 37:27 the invariant reading of all the textual sources for the expression “and their agreements in their secret abominations”.
Summary: Maintain in Alma 37:27 the phrase “and their agreements in their secret abominations”; this phraseology is actually what we should expect, despite the uniqueness of the expression; the abominations are to be revealed, but the system of oaths, covenants, and agreements behind those abominations are to be kept back from the people.