Cultural: Once again we see the Nephite perception of the Lamanite coming through. The particulars of this description, however, show us that while the Nephite view of the Lamanites remains as negative as ever, there are some interesting changes in the nature of the complaints. Of course, we must also understand that this is Mormon's description, so it probably describes the nature of the conflicts as Mormon saw them rather than the perception that the sons of Mosiah had, although they could have had similar preconceptions.
For Mormon, the Lamanites are still "a wild and a hardened and a ferocious" people. This simple description has some generic continuation from the Lamanite catalog of Enos in Enos 1:20. In that catalog, they were also "wild and ferocious." Thus a basic characteristic perception of the Lamanites spans nearly the entire Book of Mormon. This "wild" apparently remains while the original basis on which it was based has been nearly completely erased. In 2 Nephi 5:24 the word "wild" is not used, but a description of the Lamanites as nomadic hunters without apparent culture is clearly given as the general perception. This "uncivilized" morphed into "wild" and remained a description of the Lamanites even when the term "uncivilized" could no longer be applied to them as a people.
[a people who delighted in murdering the Nephites] There are two distinct possibilities for this description. The first is that there is a continuation of the historical antipathy between Lamanite and Nephite that makes the assumption that the Lamanites would like to "murder" the Nephites. However, the development of the Book of Mormon shows that there were, in fact, an increasing number and intensity of wars between Lamanites and Nephites. In the cultural context of Mesoamerica, we are in the time period when war is being developed as a religious duty among many Mesoamerican peoples. Particularly when Mormon is writing, the intensity of the wars would be apparent, and this description particularly apt. This particular phrase may be seen as both a description of the Lamanites and of virtually all of the known larger populations in Mesoamerica during Mormon's time, from what is now Honduras to Central Mexico.
One interesting possibility in Mormon's statement is the interesting selection of the term "murder." Mormon is a military man, and it would be unlike a military man to describe death through battle as a "murder." Casualties have been part of warfare since warfare was introduced into humanity sometime in the past so far away that we cannot tell a time when there was no warfare. Death in such conflicts have developed many euphemisms, with some societies exalting a death in warfare to a more respected religious plane than other forms of demise (this was an aspect of Aztec religion, where the warrior dying in battle went straight to their heaven).
Even though warfare may be against mortal enemies, there is still a distinction between a death in battle and a murder. It is possible that Mormon is referring here to something more than the deaths which came from the battles in which the warriors engaged. In Mesoamerica, human sacrifice developed as an important religious rite, and one of the major functions of warfare was to supply needed prisoners for sacrifice. Certainly the Nephites did not practice nor condone human sacrifice, and while Mormon the military man might not see death in battle as murder, he would certainly see death by sacrifice as a murder. Murders are unjustified deaths with intentional causes. Accidents are not murders because there is no intention. Deaths in war are intentional, but they are justified by the circumstances. Because the Nephites do not share the ideology that justified human sacrifice, they would not see it as a justified death, thus it would clearly be defined as murder by a Nephite.
[and robbing and plundering them] Mormon gives us two different categories of conflict between Lamanites and Nephites. While they are most likely referencing the situation at the time Mormon is writing, they are not out of place during the time of Alma and the Sons of Mosiah. In addition to murdering the Nephites, the Lamanites want to rob and plunder them. Once again, these descriptions fit the nature of Mesoamerican warfare. The function of warfare was to supply prisoners for ritual sacrifice, and to create and maintain control over tributary cities. It is this latter function that Mormon sees as "robbing and plundering."
[and their hearts were set upon riches, or upon gold and silver, and precious stones] The list of tribute items in Mesoamerica was certainly larger than gold and silver. Precious stones in Mesoamerica were typically jade rather than stones that we might consider more "precious" such as emeralds, rubies, etc. In the Book of Mormon, we frequently see gold and silver used as a set of terms that is applied to the desire for wealth. As has been discussed, Mesoamerica did not value either gold nor silver as highly as did the Western world that nearly destroyed the New World searching for those metals. What we are probably seeing in the Book of Mormon is a linguistic phrase that has a meaning as a set above and beyond its literal meaning. English has several of these phrases where the meaning exceeds the reality of the statement. For instance, we understand what it means when somebody acquires a property "lock, stock, and barrel." We understand that someone has purchased land and all that is on it. What we typically don't see is the awkwardness of using that term to describe land. This stock phrase refers to parts of a rifle. How is it that we understand something about a land purchase by referring to parts of a gun? Clearly there is nothing like a gun in the purchase of land. That phrase no longer refers to the items it originally described, but rather has gained a new meaning as a set.
Similarly, we go to a sporting goods store to be outfitted for any sport, and buy "the whole enchilada." Of course there is nothing about food in the items purchased, let alone anything particularly Mexican about them. The phrase does not refer to the specifics, but to a meaning that is larger than the term itself. The use of gold and silver in the Book of Mormon would appear to have taken on similar meanings. They are always used to express wealth, even though they do not necessarily equate with wealth in the cultural world in which the Nephites found themselves. Nevertheless, the connections of the Nephites to the Old World could easily have brought conceptions of gold and silver as wealth with them, and remained as a descriptor of wealth long after it was not descriptive of the particular elements of wealth.
[yet they sought to obtain these things by murdering and plundering, that they might not labor for them with their own hands.] By now, this phrase should have become quite familiar as a description of the evils of non-Nephite society. The idea that people should not work with their hands is embodied in the plundering. Mesoamerica at the time of the Book of Mormon presents precisely this scenario in the development of the great city states of the Olmec, Maya, Zapotec, and Teotihuacanos. Each of these societies created their wealth and influence on the back of military conquest and domination of other locations which sent tribute back to the dominant city. This system of tribute fed the hierarchical society, and allowed them to have a wealth and prestige that they did not create with their own hand. Thus we have seen since the time of Benjamin a Nephite hatred of any system which supported the ideologies of social hierarchies and not "working with their own hands." These are some of the major facets of the competing ideologies which were always with them.
We should not be surprised that Mormon's catalog of the evils of the Lamanites should so closely resemble both the earlier catalogs and the general descriptions of non-Nephite behavior. Indeed, we have seen that much of the order of the Nehors consisted in accepting some of these elements while apparently mixing them into a form of brass plates religion. The ancient world did not change nearly as rapidly as does the modern world, and it is quite common to see certain types of culture sets persisting for hundreds or a thousand years.