At the beginning of this chapter, we have a narrative use of the conjunction and that works fine as long as it is followed by the original nonfinite present participial clause (“the people being afflicted … ”). This participial clause is not immediately completed by a finite clause, although considerably later (after three prepositional phrases, one relative clause, and two parenthetical finite clauses) we get a therefore-clause that serves as the completing clause for the initial participial clause.
In his editing for the 1837 edition, Joseph Smith decided that the present participial clause should be made into a finite main clause; thus he changed the present participle being into the finite verb form were. But such a change made the original narrative connector and seem odd since if there were no contentions or wars, then why should the people be afflicted? In the original syntax, there is no narrative conflict since the participial clause forces the reader to wait for the explanation of what the people’s afflictions led to. But in the emended syntax, there needs to be some immediate contrast between the first thought (there not being any wars or contentions) and the second thought (the people being afflicted). Thus Joseph edited the and to but.
The critical text will restore the original narrative conjunction and and the present participle being. Support for such complexity in the original text can be found elsewhere:
For discussion of how Joseph Smith edited this passage, see under 1 Nephi 3:17.
Summary: Restore in Alma 4:2 the and and the being that Joseph Smith edited to but and were; the original text is rather difficult since closure is not achieved until after some delay (including the intervention of two related but parenthetical main clauses); usage elsewhere in the text supports the original complex syntax in Alma 4:1–3.