Here in 𝓟, Oliver Cowdery initially wrote “in the which God hath made me free”; Oliver’s choice of me was probably influenced by the occurrence of my soul at the beginning of the sentence as well as the use of I and my earlier in the verse (“I Parhoron do not seek for power save only to retain my judgment seat that I may preserve the rights and the liberty of my people”). Somewhat later, probably when he proofed 𝓟 against 𝓞, Oliver crossed out the me and supralinearly inserted the us (the correction was written with somewhat heavier ink flow). Notice that Parhoron, as the chief judge, does not emphasize in the preceding sentence his own personal rights and liberties, but rather “the rights and the liberty of my people”. The use of us in the following sentence is consistent with that expression of the people’s freedom.
David Calabro points out (personal communication) that other scriptural references to standing fast in liberty also refer to the freedom of entire groups of people, not to single individuals:
This same plural relationship holds in one of Paul’s letters:
But Calabro also notes that in each of these other cases the subject is plural while here in Alma 61:9 the subject of the clause is singular (“my soul standeth fast in that liberty”). This use of the singular subject my soul suggests that the singular me could be correct and that Oliver Cowdery’s change of me to us was the result of conscious editing on his part.
Although the singular me is theoretically possible here in Alma 61:9, it seems much more reasonable that Parhoron, in such a politically sensitive reply, would want to emphasize the freedom that God has granted to his people, not just himself. In my mind, it is much more reasonable to assume that Oliver Cowdery’s initial me was a scribal error. The critical text will assume as much.
Summary: Maintain the use of us here at the end of Alma 61:9 (“in that liberty in the which God hath made us free”), the corrected reading in 𝓟.