Importance Distinctions on the Appointment of a New Chief Judge

By Mark R. Hales

            To prevent wars, contentions, and divisions among the people of Zarahemla, King Mosiah II converted the Nephites governmental leadership from kings to judges in about 92 B.C. (Mosiah 29:5-47).  These wise men would be appointed by the people to judge “according to the commandments of God” and laws of the land (Mosiah 29:11,25).  Though all judges were to be selected by the voice of the people, there was a difference in how a new chief judge was appointed based on if the previous chief judge died or resigned.  In this update, I will discuss the differences of how each chief judge was appointed to his judgment seat, focusing on how his predecessor finished his term.  It is important to remember, that the Nephites’ government was not like our United States electoral system and a study of the election of Nephite political authorities will require independent consideration.

With the first election under the reign of judges, the people assembled together and cast “their voices concerning who should be their judges,” and appointed Alma the Younger, the current High Priest of the Church, the chief judge (Mosiah 29:39-42).  For nine years, Alma served in these dual capacities until he resigned and “selected a wise man” named Nephihah to serve as chief judge, and “gave him power according to the voice of the people” to enact laws, judge, and govern the people (Alma 4:16-17).  Though Nephihah had power from the people, he was not selected from the people, but was specifically appointed by Alma.  This reference to having power from the people may mean many things including: that Alma had the authority to select his successor, that the people ratified Alma’s decision, or that the people still must support the different laws Nephihah may enact; but it is clear from the text that the people did not elect Nephihah.

For the next 25 years, Nephihah judged in “perfect uprightness before God” until his death in 67 B.C. (Alma 50:37).  After Nephihah’s death, his son, Pahoran, was appointed to fill the judgment seat “with an oath and sacred ordinance to judge righteously” (Alma 50:39).  Though it is not stated whether Pahoran was elected by the voice of the people, it is obvious he covenanted to serve them righteously.  This was similar to the actions of kings in Hebrew Law when a king was “accepted by the people through a covenant specifying his rights and duties.”[1]  Soon into Pahoran’s reign, “there were a few part of the people who desired that a few particular points of the law be altered” and desired “to overthrow the free government and to establish a king over the land” (Alma 51:2-5).  To resolve this contention, an election occurred and “voice of the people” voted to have Pahoran remain as the chief judge (Alma 51:7).

After Pahoran’s death in 52 B.C., three of his sons vied for the judgment seat, with the “voice of the people” appointing Pahoran II as the new chief judge (Helaman 1:2-5).  But, soon after his appointment, Pahoran II was murdered, and the people had a new election and chose his brother Pacumeni (Helaman 1:12-13).  But such as the fate of many chief judges, Pacumeni was also murdered (Helaman 1:21), and a contention again arose as to who should be the new chief judge (Helaman 2:1).  As a result of Pacumeni’s assassination, the people gathered their voices together and appointed Helaman II, the son of Helaman, as the new chief judge (Helaman 2:2).

For the next 10 years, Helaman II reigned until is death in the “fifty and third year of the reign of judges” wherein, his son, Nephi, “began to reign in his stead” (Helaman 3:37).  It is not stated whether Nephi was elected by the people, or if he was appointed by his father, but a few years later Nephi desired to “preach the word of God to the people” (Helaman 5:4), so he “delivered up the judgment-seat” to Cezoram (Helaman 5:1).  Cezoram remained chief judge until “he was murdered by an unknown hand as he sat upon the judgment seat” in the sixty and six year of the reign of judges (Helaman 6:15).  After Cezoram’s murder, his son was “appointed by the people” to sit upon the judgment seat (Helaman 6:15).  The pattern of electing a new chief judge after the previous judge was murdered is also seen in the next chief judge mentioned, Seezoram.[2]  When Seezoram was murdered his brother Seantum (Helaman 9:3-6; 23-38), Seantum was seeking appointment of the judgment seat by the people (Helaman 8:27).

At the time the signs were given of the birth of Christ, Lachoneus was the chief judge over the land (3 Nephi 1:1).  At the end of Lachoneus’ reign, he appointed Gidgiddoni as chief judge (3 Nephi 3:18-19), but eventually Lachoneus’s son, Lachoneus II filled “the seat of his father and did govern the people,” (3 Nephi 6:19), until he was killed a soon time later (3 Nephi 7:1).  Though these verses provide a vague understanding of how the judgeship went from Lachoneus I to Lachoneus II, the fact is that the people did not always voice their opinion on the appointment of the chief judge.  After Lachoneus II was murdered, the Nephites created a new tribal government, and “every tribe did appoint a chief or leader over them” (3 Nephi 7:3).

With this understanding it helps us better understand the political style of the Nephites.  Though all lower judges were probably elected by the voice of the people, the chief judge had king-like attributes with power to govern the people, create laws, and appoint his successor.  In addition, the Nephites only elected a chief judge when he failed to appoint a successor, or when the Nephites wanted to retain their judicial style of government; the Nephites never chose to overthrow an existing chief judge with a new chief judge.

In summary, based on text of the Book of Mormon, it appears that it was common for a chief judge to appoint his successor before he resigned, but if he died, and more particularly if he was murdered, the people were required to elect the new chief judge.  The reasoning perhaps derives from the authority of the chief judge.  While alive, his authority from the people allowed him to appoint his successor, but the moment he dies his authority ends, requiring a new election.   Despite King Mosiah’s law of conducting the political business by the voice of the people (Mosiah 29:26), the people had limited control over the succession of chief judges.