One wonders here if perhaps the original text didn’t have even in place of ever in the first clause (that is, “for as I had even called them my sons”). The original manuscript is extant here, and it clearly reads ever, although this clarity is not a guarantee since Oliver Cowdery frequently mixed up his n ’s and r ’s, especially at the ends of words (see, for instance, the discussion under Mosiah 2:15–16 regarding clear versus clean).
For each case where there is a question of whether the word is ever or even, we first consider what the scribe actually wrote in the manuscripts. There is some evidence that Oliver Cowdery frequently took pains to make sure he distinguished between ever and even, as in the following cases of momentary error in the manuscripts:
In some cases of theoretically possible variation, the context makes it clear which reading is correct. But in other cases, we must consider usage elsewhere in the text. For instance, in Mosiah 11:12 (see the discussion under that passage), internal evidence strongly supports the use of even in “he built a tower near the temple / yea a very high tower even so high that … ”. Similarly, here in Alma 56:46, usage elsewhere supports ever rather than even after the past-perfect auxiliary had:
There are no examples of had even in the text. Nonetheless, even will work in Alma 56:46; but since ever is clearly written in the manuscripts and usage elsewhere supports ever, the critical text will maintain ever here in Alma 56:46.
Summary: Accept the word ever rather than even in Alma 56:46: “I had ever called them my sons”; 𝓞 definitely reads ever, and had ever is found elsewhere in the text while had even is not (although the latter argument is not conclusive here since had even will work).