In that case, the supralinear of was written in ๐ with heavier ink ๏ฌow; again the correction probably occurred when Oliver proofed ๐ against ๐. As explained under Alma 53:6, either reading, with or without the of, for โcity (of ) Mulekโ is possible. In each case, the critical text will follow the earliest extant reading, thus the corrected reading in ๐ for Helaman 5:15 and the reading in ๐ for Alma 53:2.
Summary: Maintain the occurrence of of for โthe city of Mulekโ in Helaman 5:15; the corrected of is very likely the reading in ๐ (which is not extant here); also maintain the of in Alma 53:2, which is extant in ๐.