Historically, the transition between rulers has always been a vulnerable time. An advantage of monarchies in which the dead king has an adult son is the clarity of the process, with the son having a divinely sanctioned mandate to replace the father. Such transparency greatly reduces contentions over the right—but ambitions still dictated dark dealings in the ancient world, and many a legal successor died mysteriously.
Among the Nephites a similar vulnerable point came at Pahoran’s death. Not only was the chief judge’s death a time of transition, but it was the first time that the surviving chief judge had not declared his ruler. Mosiah2 had abdicated as king, installing Alma2 as the first chief judge, and Alma2 abdicated the judgment seat to Pahoran. For the first time the transition was without clear precedent. Complicating things even more, the crisis of succession came at a time of increasing internal divisions among the Nephites. Pahoran’s death became a spark that ignited already-smoldering divisions.
To set the stage for this conflict, Mormon gives us the essential information that Pahoran’s three sons contended for the judgment seat. In other words, the conflict over succession is still lineal, not a free-for-all. The conflict is resolved by the voice of the people, who confirm the seating of Pahoran2, presumably the eldest, although Mormon does not give that detail. As (presumably) the eldest son, the voice of the people recognized that the position was his right. While his brothers certainly understood the principle, the newness of the situation obviously opened the door to new possibilities.
Variant: Where extant, the original manuscript and the printer’s manuscript spell this name “Pahoron,” not “Pahoran,” for both the father and the son. “Pahoran” first appears in the 1830 edition and has been consistently retained since then.