Alma now explains his concept that repentance required “punishment.” This is particularly important to the point he is making to Corianton, because it is the presence of the “punishment” that is apparently the thing that Corianton had questions. In the theology of those where were, or were similar, to the order of Nehor, there was no punishment because salvation was universal. What Alma is carefully doing is placing the concept of punishment as an unavoidable and critical part of the plan.
Not only is it critical, but it is part of the plan of mercy which ironically would be the precise argument that one might use to suggest that there would be no need for “punishment.” The argument would be something like “if God were merciful, then he wouldn’t want to punish us.” Alma is carefully demonstrating why that idea is flawed. It does not also account for the justice of God and the need to balance justice and mercy. From that tension comes the resolution of the atonement, a resolution that still preserves punishment, but only for those who do not repent. Thus punishment will not be applied by God, but by the voluntary actions of those who chose punishment by their refusal of the atonement that would prevent that punishment and indeed lead to happiness.
Alma links repentance to “punishment” through a logical progression:
[Repentance requires sin] Unless there is something to repent of, repentance is impossible. Repentance is a turning away from anything that estranges us from God. If that thing is not there, we cannot repent of it, we cannot turn from something that isn’t there.
[Sin requires law] Alma now ties the fact of sin to law. In Alma’s description, sin consists in “breaking” commandments. This is a conception of sin that is directly derived from the Old Testament understanding of the law of Moses. The “law” provided the definitions of what one must do, and violations of the law of Moses were sin. This is the reason that Paul could also indicate that sin requires law:
Romans 5:13
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
For Paul, sin and law (in this case, the law of Moses) are directly related to the extent that “sin is not imputed when there is no law.” This is an important concept precisely because it begins to point us to the nature of the plan of happiness. Even those things that appear least merciful are directly and intimately related to the plan of happiness.
[law requires punishment] Alma suggests that a law is no law if there is no “punishment” for its breach. If a parent says to a child “don’t touch that book” there may be a command in the statement, but there is no “law.” When we say “do not steal, because if you do you will be placed in jail” we have a law, precisely because there is a penalty affixed that defines the result of the breach of the law.
It is again important to remember that this logical development of the linkage between punishment and the plan of happiness is the very specific answer to a problem Corianton had.