After recording Alma's blessings and admonition to his sons, Mormon adds that "the sons of Alma did go forth among the people to declare the word unto them" (Alma 43:1) According to Brant Gardner, what is striking about this statement is that we have just seen Corianton called to this effort, and we have no indication that he is to be excluded. We must conclude, therefore, that Corianton was truly repentant, and that he did follow his father's admonitions, and did accept his call to the ministry. [Brant Gardner, "Book of Mormon Commentary," at [http://www.frontpage2k.nmia.com/~nahualli/LDStopics/Alma/Alma43.htm], p. 1]
“And the Sons of Alma Did Go Forth to Declare the Word”
In Alma 30:6 the chronological footnote pegs "the latter end of the seventeenth year" to "B.C. 74." In Alma 35:12-16 we find that "the seventeenth year [74 B.C.] of the reign of the judges" ended. . . . "And Alma, and Ammon, and their brethren, and also the two sons of Alma returned to the land of Zarahemla." . . . and Alma "caused that his sons should be gathered together, that he might give unto them every one his charge, separately, concerning the things pertaining unto righteousness. And we have an account of his commandments, which he gave unto them according to his own record."
We then have a number of chapters wherein Alma gives counsel to his sons -- Helaman (Alma 36-37), Shiblon (Alma 38), Corianton (Alma 39-42).
Now with this chronology in mind, the reader should note that the chronological footnote at the bottom of the page for Alma 43:3--"And now I return to an account of the wars between the Nephites and the Lamanites in the eighteenth year of the reign of the judges"-- reads " ABOUT 74 B.C." This is one year PREVIOUS to the war mentioned. Why is this dated like it is? Is the chronological footnote a mistake? [Alan C. Miner, Personal Notes] [See Appendix A--Chronology] [See the commentary by Skousen on Alma 36-42]