Culture: Read simplistically, this verse claims that Nephite church-men became rich—even richer than the non-church-men. Mormon makes this statement explicitly in verse 31. However, Mormon’s definition of wealth was: “having abundance of all things whatsoever they stood in need.” This is an egalitarian definition, not a modern, materialistic one. The modern definition is having an abundance that surpasses what we need. To use a modern example, if we “need” an automobile, then having one working machine would meet Mormon’s definition. For those who measure wealth by automobiles, the critical point would not be having one or even two working cars but an extravagantly expensive car, or a different car for every day of the week, or a different car for every kind of function (transporting the family, hauling a trailer, etc.) or terrain we might imagine driving over (racy sports car, SUV, etc.).
Mormon further reveals his definition of wealth in the precise items he lists, most of which are necessities of life: flocks and herds, fatlings, grain, material for clothing. Note that, in addition to silk and linen, the church-men also make “good homely cloth.” “Homely” in this context does not have the modern connotation of being unattractive; rather it likely means homespun, in Joseph Smith’s terms, sturdy and plain. Obviously, Mormon directly contrasts “good homely cloth” to “costly apparel.” I hypothesize that it also contrasts “homemade” to “imported,” based on how “costly apparel” would be defined in a non-monetary economy. (See commentary accompanying Jacob 2:12–13 and Alma 7:6.)
Some of the items of wealth meet modern definitions of wealth: gold, silver, silk, and fine-twined linen. However, in Mesoamerican culture, gold and silver were not intrinsically valuable nor did their possession make one rich. They were not money but rather a product for barter. Similarly, the silk and fine-twined linen let us know that, with abundant foodstuffs, there was sufficient time to make nicer fabric than just the “good homely cloth.” However, the silk and the fine-twined linen are specifically not “costly apparel.” These fabrics, in other words, were not mark of social elitism.
Mormon’s markers connoted an egalitarian society whose members an abundance of what they needed but who avoided the ostentatious display that led to social divisions. Almost certainly, a non-church-man look at these church-men would not deem them nearly as “rich” as did Mormon; after all, they lacked the ostentatious “costly apparel” that spelled wealth.