Mosiah proposes creating judges rather than kings. Although he offers some reasons for this change, the description is so restrained that it seems likely that the people already had some familiarity with the concept, perhaps because it was an elevation of an existing function. Indeed, Mosiah suggests as much in saying that the judges would “judge this people according to our law.”
It is impossible to have judges without law, for there would be no standard for their judgment (except possibly common sense). A king does not need law because the king is the law. Thus, in a kingdom, it is comparatively easy to deal with a novel situation because the king makes a decision (presumably Yahweh’s will) which then becomes law for all. The king’s removal also removes that personal access to Yahweh’s will; therefore, something else must become the basis for ruling. That basis is law.
Zarahemla society had already been transitioning to a concept of law, perhaps supported by the understanding of the rules codified in the law of Moses. When church members are persecuted, the issue comes before Mosiah (Mosiah 27:1–2). The result was the creation of a new law (Mosiah 27:3). The basic mechanisms for law and judgment were already in place for Zarahemla. Mosiah formalized the mechanisms and exalted the position of judge. Without such a foundation, simply declaring a change of government would not be possible. The promotion of judges and the demotion of the king presuppose that something else would take the role of the king as the final judge. Here, it appears to have been the accepted body of law, a concept that was already functioning.
While it has long been understood that kings reigned over the Maya cities, it is now apparent that those kings did not rule autocratically. They ruled with the assistance of a council formed from leaders of important lineages. Political power was held by balancing the tensions among these lineages. This is most dramatically attested in the reign of Yax Pasaj near the final years of Copán where he acts on monumental sculpture in company with important nobles, rather than majestically alone as most kings are represented on the monuments. These lineages or councils operated in buildings designated as popol nah or “mat houses.” The mat was the symbol of ruling power. The woven mat was a place of honor upon which the ruler sat, and the association of person, place, and thing exalted the simple mat to a symbol. The buildings known as “mat houses” are therefore locations associated with the political system. They might be attached to the state, but also were present in some smaller communities. The various popol nah functioned for the debate of policy as well as centers for instruction in ritual dance.
The great houses, or lineages, formed a governmental layer that functioned just below the monarchy and was integral to the political process. Even under the monarchy there were political structures similar to the Nephite judges. In fact, John Pohl notes that in one of the later Mixtec codices: “The four priests… specifically conform to descriptions in the Relación de Tilantongo and elsewhere of a body of judges who administered the realm for the king.”
In the course of history, some Mesoamerican communities appear to have followed the same political path as the Nephites. They disposed of the position of the king. When they did so, these previous structures remained in place but were elevated to perform the centralized ruling function. There is some evidence that this took place at Teotihuacán. It is much more certain that a council of lineage heads ruled in Chichén Itzá. Even though all of these examples post-date the Book of Mormon, there is no reason to believe that the essential political structures were significantly different in earlier times. (See also commentary accompanying Mosiah 29:45–47 for information on the position of judges in Mesoamerican cultures.)
History: Mosiah’s selection of the term “judge” for this new position most likely came from the brass plates record of Israel’s judges. It is interesting that Israel moved from judges to a monarchy, while Mosiah reverses that direction.
However, even though the term is the same, significant differences appear between the Israelite judges and the Nephite judges. The Israelite judges seem to arise in response to military crises; they were never true political leaders with ongoing administrative responsibility. In contrast, Nephite judges administered the government with no hint of an overt military function, other than those required of a head of state. Regardless of the differences, however, using a familiar name would tie this new form of government to the sacred past, thus making it easier to accept. (See also commentary accompanying Mosiah 29:45–47.)
Mosiah as Lawgiver: John W. Welch has examined Mosiah as a lawgiver:
The law of Mosiah primarily made procedural changes and probably did not make radical changes in the substantive rules of the Law of Moses. Mosiah instructed the new Nephite judges to judge “according to the laws… given you by our fathers” (Mosiah 29:25; italics added), and twenty-two years later the Nephites were still “strict in observing the ordinances of God, according to the law of Moses” (Alma 30:3).…
The law of Mosiah… prohibited slavery in the land of Zarahemla, for Ammon assured his converts that “it is against the law of our brethren, which was established by my father, that there should be any slaves among them” (Alma 27:9). Previously it had been only by royal benevolence that slavery was not allowed in Zarahemla (Mosiah 2:13).…
The law of Mosiah probably also provided that the governor alone had jurisdiction over capital offenses (3 Ne. 6:22), but this regulation may have been introduced a few generations later.…
Mosiah’s judicial reform remained solid for sixty-two years, but then his laws were “altered and trampled under their feet” (Hel. 4:22). The majority of the people chose evil (Hel. 5:2), Nephi had to deliver the judgment-seat to Cezoram (Hel. 5:1), and judicial corruption soon ensued. (Hel. 8:4, 3 Ne. 6:23).