Moroni is clearly unhappy, but the nature of his accusation requires some understanding. Other than the obvious lack of support, why would he accuse Pahoran of sitting on a throne in a thoughtless stupor? One of the hallmarks of the Lamanite social structure was the hierarchical separation of the elite from the rest of society. That social distance could create situations in which the intents of the rulers were far from those of the people, and there might be little understanding of the real world for those who were comfortably housed in palaces. This is directly contrary to the Nephite egalitarian ideal. Moroni is suggesting that even Pahoran is becoming “Lamanite” in his approach to government. This is a stronger accusation that even the language displays.
Social: It is not just Pahoran who sits on a throne. Moroni writes to a group of people, and each sits on their “throne.” Mesoamericans did not have the elaborate thrones of Western Europe. Indeed, they did not typically have chairs. Nevertheless, they understood the basic principle of the throne, which is that the person of importance should be raised to a higher position that those around them. This was accomplished in two ways. One was the placement of the ruler on a raised dias. That platform itself raised the rule above his subjects. Such a dias is visible on various Maya painted pots. In addition to the dias, there was a low chair that belonged to the ruler. Among the Aztecss, this low chair was called the icpalli, and is frequently translated as “throne.” The difference is that this is an elite seating arrangement, not one that is reserved for the king or the ultimate ruler. Particularly in the Nephite rule of judges, there would be several judges who would be in authority, a position that could be represented by sitting on their higher location – or their “throne.” Moroni’s suggestion that there were multiple leaders sitting on “thrones” is another echo of a Mesoamerican cultural reality.