Social: Only by understanding Mormon’s distinction between riches and wealth can we properly understand the juxtaposition he presents in verses 31 and 32. It is too simple to read verse 31 in the modern sense that the churchmen were “wealthier/richer” than the non-churchmen. That would assume that the churchmen had the “riches” that Mormon suggests they did not.
Verse 32 begins with “for….”, which is a conjunction that indicates that an explanation is coming. Verse 32 explains how the churchmen are wealthier than the non-churchmen. Notice the list of things that make the churchmen wealthier:
· Did not indulge in sorceries
· Did not indulge in idolatry
· Did not indulge in idleness
· Did not indulge in babblings
· Did not indulge in envyings and strive
· Did not wear costly apparel
· Did not persecute others
· Did no lie
· Did not thieve
· Did not rob
· Did not commit whoredoms
· Did not murder
· Did not commit other forms of wickedness
Of all of these reasons for the wealth of the churchmen, the only one that says anything about any valuable possession is that they did not wear costly clothing! In other words, the only thing remarkable about their “rich” possessions was that they did have them!
Mormon is clearly equating wealth with the peace and spiritual wealth of the gospel, not economic goods. Those economic goods were there in abundance, but only those that were necessary for their well-being – not the types of goods that others would consider to be wealth, such as the costly apparel.
Linguistic: The catalog of differences between churchmen and non-churchmen includes two terms that have come to have similar meanings in modern English: theft and robbery. The nature of the list of things the churchmen did not do is otherwise made up of fairly distinct items, so we cannot understand the listing of theft and robbery as parallels of similar terms for the purpose of emphasis. These two terms appear to indicate a more strict differentiation between what makes a theft (which may be impersonal – a theft may occur when no one is around) and a robbery (which requires the presence of the person being robbed, a very personal event). It is quite likely that Nephite law made a distinction between these two crimes. Such a distinction would follow known traditions:
“…there was a big difference under the law of Moses, and in ancient Near Eastern criminal law generally, between being a ”thief“ and being a ”robber.“ (Discussed in John W Welch, ”Theft and Robbery in the Book of Mormon and Ancient Near Eastern Law,“ F.A.R.M.S. Wel-85a; summarized in ”New Developments in Book of Mormon Research," Ensign, February 1988, p. 12. See also Bernard Jackson, Theft in Early Jewish Law [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975J.) A thief was an inside member of the community; he usually worked alone, and he stole things like chickens at night. A thief’s criminal offense was not serious, and he was punished lightly, usually being required to return double that which he had stolen. A robber, on the other hand, was an outsider, literally an outlaw, living outside the community and outside the protection and rights of local law. Robbers hid out in the hills in bands, swearing oaths of secrecy and swooping down on villages, openly assassinating and plundering. Robbers were one of the greatest scourges of ancient civilization; sometimes in Egypt they occupied whole cities. Soldiers were sent out after them, and when they were caught, they were put to death on the spot-no trials were necessary.
In both Greek and Hebrew the words “thief” and “robber” have very unique and different meanings. A thief is an embezzler or pilferer - one who steal by stealth. The robber’s way is threat and violence; he is a plunderer who usually joins with others of his kind to prey upon the weak and unprotected. In Hebrew history the robber is a military problem, and may be executed on the spot when caught. The Old Testament translation accurately reflects this difference but the New Testament ignores it. This is clearly evidenced in the Strong’s Greek Lexicon where the word lestes is defined as “a robber, plunderer, freebooter, brigand (not to be confused with a thief, one who takes property by stealth).” Strong then goes on to acknowledge that in the New Testament this word has been translated “thief” eleven times. Luke 10:30 is a clear example if this carelessness:
And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves (lestes), which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
But, by this ancient definition, you don’t “fall among thieves,” only amongst robbers.
In the Book of Mormon, this distinction of thief and robber is never confused. Nephi and his brothers are called “robbers” and Laban sends his servants after them to slay them. It’s the military that deals with the Gadianton robbers and when the robber leader, Zemnarihah, was caught he was hanged without trial (3 Nephi 4:28). (Cited by Richard Grant (http://www.cometozarahemla.org/) Welch, John W. Study, Faith, and the Book of Mormon. A devotional address given at BYU by John W. Welch - 10 May 1988)