Social: These three verses are easily read too simply. We can dismiss them by saying that the people of the church obeyed the law, and that those who were not of the church did not. We might even justify this position by our supposition that the members of the church were the “good guys” and that the non-members were the “bad guys.” Reading the text this simply would miss much of what is going on in Zarahemla.
As has been noted, there was a fundamental schism in Zarahemlite society between the religion of the Nephites and a competing religion. Also as has been noted it is impossible to separate religion from all other aspects of life in the ancient world, so that a difference in what we term “religion” was easily a difference in politics and a difference in culture. Mormon very clearly states that those who were members of the church obeyed the law, and the non-members did not. However, the underlying issue lies not in simple obedience, but obedience to a particular belief system.
The members of the church obeyed because it was a law that reflected their politics and social understanding. The non-members did not share all of those fundamental assumptions. It would be precisely along the lines of the political/social differences that non-member disobedience would take place. Following this logic, it is important that Mormon does discuss the reasons for the non-member persecution of the members. Note that the differences of opinion fell upon social economic and religo-political lines: “because of their humility; because they were not proud in their own eyes, and because they did impart the word of God, one with another, without money and without price” (verse 20).
What are the essential elements of the difference of opinion, those differences that led to a form of civil disobedience? First, we note that the members of the church had a religion “without money and without price.” It would be facile to read this as a dialog against the professional clergy of modern Christianity, but it would also be anachronistic to the Book of Mormon text. As we have see multiple times, most recently with Nehor, there was a conflict between the egalitarian ideal of Nephite religion and the very obvious social/economic differentiation that was inherent in the competing religion. Mesoamerican society did not have money, and therefore could not properly have a “paid” clergy. What they did have, however, was a class distinction marked by wealth and ostentatious clothing (the wearing of their wealth). It was this type of religious/social structure that Nehor had advocated, and clearly there were many (constituting most likely the majority of the non-church-members) who supported Nehor’s type of priesthood.
Even in the way Mormon couches the Nephite virtues we can see the thrust of the argument against the church. The churchmen were despised “because of their humility; because they were not proud in their own eyes.”
While we might read into humility and lack of pride any number of meanings, the context is suggestive that this is an economic humility rather than a spiritual one. The Nephite religion holds to the egalitarianism of Benjamin, as opposed to the priesthood as implemented by Noah and most recently represented by Nehor. As Mormon unfolds his description of the Nephite church, notice how often the definition follows economic concepts rather than doctrinal concepts.