Here the printer’s manuscript reads “in your own countenances”. At first glance, the occurrence of own here seems unnecessary, which may explain why the 1830 typesetter omitted the own (even if unintentionally). There is a theoretical possibility that an extra own was inserted in this passage during the early transmission of the text. Manuscript evidence shows that scribes sometimes accidentally added an extra own:
In all four of these examples, there is a nearby own that seems to have triggered the insertion of the extra own. And there is a fifth possible example, one in which scribe 2 of 𝓟 may have accidentally added an extra own under the influence of a following own:
For discussion of this example, see under Mormon 4:8.
Here in Alma 5:14, however, there is no nearby own that could have served as the source for the own. Thus the own in 𝓟 could be original to the text. Also note that Oliver Cowdery did not remove this own when he proofed 𝓟 against 𝓞. Moreover, there is a greater tendency in the history of the text to omit own (if only momentarily) rather than to add it:
This evidence suggests that the loss of own in the 1830 edition for Alma 5:14 is accidental, not an intended emendation to the text.
There are no other examples in the Book of Mormon of “own countenance(s)”. There are four other cases in the text of countenance(s) preceded by a possessive determiner (their, your, and his ), but own does not occur in any of these examples:
In particular, note the similarity of the nearby example in Alma 5:19 to Alma 5:14 (both refer to having the image of God in one’s countenance), yet Alma 5:19 has no own.
Nonetheless, one can argue for the use of own in Alma 5:14. Alma is asking his listeners to compare themselves to their fathers, who would have received Christ’s image in their countenances. Earlier in this passage, Alma refers to the conversion of their fathers:
In verse 14, Alma is asking his listeners if they too have been spiritually converted. Thus the contrastive use of own with countenances is perfectly acceptable. The critical text will therefore restore the earliest reading, “have ye received his image in your own countenances”, especially since the textual tendency would have been to omit the own, not add it, unless there was a nearby own (which there is not for Alma 5:14).
Summary: Restore in Alma 5:14 the original own in “have ye received his image in your own countenances”; own is used contrastively to compare Alma’s listeners with their fathers, who would have received the image of God in their countenances.