In this passage, the RLDS text has twice removed the have, once in verse 28 and once more in verse 29 (the first in the 1892 edition, the second in the 1874 edition). In each of these two cases, the original we have was preceded by a yea (although it is difficult to believe that the yea had much to do with loss of the perfect have). It appears that these two omissions were unintended, at least when they first entered the RLDS text. Surprisingly, the 1908 RLDS edition did not restore either of these have’s, even though they are in 𝓟. Neither have is fully extant in 𝓞, but in each case there is clearly room for the have between extant fragments of 𝓞. The critical text will, of course, maintain the persistent occurrence of the perfective we have throughout this passage.
Summary: Maintain in Alma 26:28–30 the continuous use of the perfect auxiliary have.