One of the historically most fragile times in complex societies was at the death of the ruler. One of the advantages of kingship was the provision for a very clear successor, whereby contention over the one with the right to reign were reduced. Even then, however, ambitions dictated dark dealings in the world, and many a legal successor died mysteriously. Among the Nephites a similar fragile point comes at the death of Pahoran. Not only was the death of the chief judge time of transition, it came at a time when there were increasing internal divisions among the Nephites for many reasons. The death of Pahoran was simply a catalyst that ignited the flames of the divisions that had already been fomenting.
To set the stage for this conflict, Mormon gives us the essential information. There were three sons of Pahoran who contended for the judgment seat. We note that these were his sons, and that the issue of continuation of rule fell to the sons, and not to some outsider. As we continue to note, the chief judgeship does not pass through a democratic process, but rather a lineal one.
The resolution of the conflict comes through the application of the voice of the people. However, that “voice” was polled, the result was the seating of Pahoran. We are not told the birth order of the sons of Pahoran, but with the seated son having the same name as his father, we might expect that Pahoran was the eldest, and that he was the choice of the voice of the people because it was his right to sit on the throne. We do not have enough information to understand why the other two brothers had legitimate enough claims that they were able to pursue them.
Variant: Where extant, the original manuscript gives the spelling of Pahoron instead of our Pahoran. This includes the occasions where the name refers to the son rather than the father. The current spelling first appears in the printed edition, and has been consistently retained. (Book of Mormon critical text, 3:908 and following).