In this passage the typesetter for the 1905 LDS missionary edition, it would appear, accidentally replaced the modal shall with should. This reading has been followed by all the later LDS editions that derive from the 1905 edition (namely, the LDS editions from 1911 up through the 1981 edition). Elsewhere in the text, various modals can occur in the that-clause that complements the verb phrase “will/wilt … suffer”. The most frequent modal is shall, but there are single examples of other modals, plus several examples without any modal. We get the following statistics for the original text (here I include the original shall in Alma 56:46 as part of the statistics):
| shall | 20 times |
| 6 times | |
| will | 1 time |
| may | 1 time |
| should |
In the following, I provide a second example for the first type and one example for each of the other types:
The last example shows that should is possible.
Clearly shall is overwhelmingly preferred in that-clauses that complement the verb phrase “will/ wilt ... suffer”. For each case, however, we let the earliest textual sources determine whether there is a modal verb and, if so, which one. Thus the original shall in Alma 56:46 will be restored in the critical text. For some discussion on those cases where there is no modal, see under Mosiah 11:24.
Summary: Restore the modal shall in Alma 56:46; the 1905 LDS change is undoubtedly a typo and not due to editing since the text has retained the vast majority of examples of shall in that-clauses acting as complement to the verb phrase “will/ wilt ... suffer”.