As he was setting the type here, the 1830 compositor added the conjunction or before the second conjunctive relative clause in this passage (“that was hungry”). In his editing for the 1837 edition, Joseph Smith also added the or to the printer’s manuscript. The first relative clause in this passage begins with which (“which was naked”). This relative clause is then followed by a group of conjoined relative clauses that all begin with that, so one could argue that the first relative clause functions separately from the following group of relative clauses. Yet there are other examples in the text where we get variation in the relative pronoun in conjuncts of relative clauses. One example is found in Mosiah 15:21: “yea even a resurrection of those that have been and which are and which shall be” (see the discussion under 2 Nephi 26:4). In the example from Mosiah 15:21, the first relative pronoun (that) differs from the following two (both were originally which but have now been edited to who); we have the same basic variation in Alma 1:30 except that the first relative pronoun is which and the following ones are that. Also note that in Mosiah 15:21 all the relative clauses are separated from each other by the conjunction and.
It is possible here in Alma 1:30 that or could have been deleted sometime early on in the transmission of the text. The fact that Oliver Cowdery did not supply it when he proofed 𝓟 suggests that it was also missing from 𝓞. There is considerable evidence that or could sometimes be lost in the early transmission of the text, usually only temporarily:
One additional possible case involving the early loss of or may have occurred in Alma 58:18, where spacing considerations between extant fragments suggests there was an or originally in 𝓞 but that it was omitted when Oliver Cowdery copied from 𝓞 into 𝓟:
For discussion, see under that passage.
Usage elsewhere in the text supports two possibilities for cases involving at least three conjoined phrases or words dealing with suffering: either there are conjunctions throughout the conjunctive structure or there is only one conjunction, just before the last conjunct (there are two examples of the latter case, each marked below with an asterisk); in all these examples, the conjunction is and, not or:
Note especially the similarity of the listing in Alma 4:12 with that of Alma 1:30 (both include the words naked, hungry, athirst, and sick). These examples support the decision of the 1830 typesetter to add the conjunction or in Alma 1:30.
Perhaps the strongest support for adding the or in Alma 1:30 comes from the parallel language in Christ’s parable of the sheep and the goats, where every subject complement is separated off by the conjunction or:
Ultimately, the question in Alma 1:30 is whether the or is needed. My sense is that the conjunction is necessary and that somehow it was lost early in the transmission of the text, perhaps when the scribe in 𝓞 took down Joseph Smith’s dictation. The earliest reading (in the printer’s manuscript) seems quite implausible. The critical text will therefore follow the 1830 typesetter’s decision to place an or between the first two relative clauses: “they did not send away any which was naked or that was hungry”.
Summary: Accept in Alma 1:30 the 1830 typesetter’s decision to emend the text by adding the conjunction or so that every relative clause conjunct is separated from its neighbor by an or: “they did not send away any which was naked or that was hungry or that was athirst or that was sick or that had not been nourished”.