Alma 37:38 Textual Variants

One wonders here if the present-tense call might be a mistake for called or did call, especially since the following conjoined clause reads in the past tense as “or our fathers called it Liahona”. There is evidence elsewhere in the early transmission of the text for the occasional loss of the past-tense ending -(e)d, as in the following examples where Oliver Cowdery made the mistake:

• 1 Nephi 19:13 (error copying from 𝓞 into 𝓟)
  • because they [crucified 0|Crucify 1|crucify ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST] the God of Israel
• Alma 56:37 (supposed that misheard as suppose that as Joseph Smith dictated the text)
  • and as we [suppose 01EFGHIJKLMNOPQRST|supposed ABCD] [that 01| ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST] it was their intent to slay us before Antipus should overtake them …
• 3 Nephi 15:10 (initial error in 𝓟, corrected virtually immediately)
  • and this is the law and the prophets for they truly [testify > testified 1|testified ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST] of me
• Ether 15:15 (initial error in 𝓟, corrected virtually immediately)
  • and they fought all that day and [conquour > conquored 1|conquered ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST] not

There is less evidence, but still some, for Oliver accidentally omitting the helping verb did:

• Alma 44:22 (initial error in 𝓟, corrected virtually immediately)
  • and it came to pass that they [did 0ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST|NULL > did 1] cast their dead into the waters of Sidon

It should be noted, however, that in this one instance the loss of did did not lead to a change in tense since cast is also the standard past-tense form for the verb cast.

Here in Alma 37:38, 𝓞 is extant for both instances of the verb call (first the present-tense call, then the past-tense called ), and the text has consistently maintained this difference in tense, from 𝓟 through every printed edition.

This difference in tense could be intentional. One possible explanation is that the three common nouns translated into English as ball, director, and compass occurred in the language of Alma and Helaman’s time (Alma uses all three of them here in Alma 37:38), but because the particular name for this object (namely, Liahona) was no longer current in Alma and Helaman’s time, it was necessary for Alma to provide the interpretative language for his son Helaman: “which is being interpreted a compass” (Alma could have read the term Liahona on the plates of Nephi). And it may be this difference in vocabulary that led Alma to use the present-tense call to refer to the names ball and director (and compass itself if he had wanted to) but the past-tense called to refer to Liahona, by then an unknown term. Because the word Liahona appears to be archaic for Alma and Helaman (but not ball, director, or compass), the critical text will maintain the difference in tense for the verb call in Alma 37:38, with the present-tense call applying to the words ball and director but the past-tense called to Liahona: “which our fathers call a ball or director / or our fathers called it Liahona”. Even so, the possibility remains that call may be a mistake for called or did call.