Just as the wealthy are subservient to Yahweh, so too are the “poor without sufficient means” subservient to the “poor with sufficient means.” Even a small differentiation in substance is sufficient to create social divisions. Those who lack gold and silver but who have food and raiment are also under an obligation to avoid creating social distinctions. They may not have surplus to give, but they must be willing to give if they could.
History: Benjamin’s division between two types of poor follows a conceptual division seen in the Bible. John Dominic Crossan, chair of the Historical Jesus section of the Society of Biblical Literature, describes the social distinctions among the poor in the Bible:
The most common words for the needy in the Hebrew Bible are ani and ebyon. “The difference… was in the immediacy of need. Whereas the ani was pressed by debts and dependent upon the good grace of an employer creditor, the ebyon needed to be helped at once if he was to survive.” [citing Gildas Hamel] Those terms, however, often appear as a tandem set—as they do, for example, in these representative cases:
You shall not withhold the wages of the poor [ani] and needy [ebyon] laborers, whether other Israelites or aliens who reside in your land in one of your towns. (Deut. 24:14)
Hear this, you that trample on the needy [ebyon], and bring to ruin the poor [ani] of the land. (Amos 8:4)
The murderer rises at dusk to kill the poor [ani] and needy [ebyon], and in the night is like a thief. (Job 24:14)
While it may be too convenient to see the “poor without sufficient means” as a translation for ebyon and the “poor with sufficient means” as a translation for ani, the Book of Mormon usage certainly replicates the essential meaning and distinction, regardless of the actual word on the plates.