Here in the printer’s manuscript, Oliver Cowdery had some difficulty with how to refer to Helaman’s name. He initially wrote in 𝓟 “the Son of Helaman whose name was called Helaman”, but then he crossed out the se of whose and the word name, perhaps when he proofed 𝓟 against 𝓞 since the ink level for the crossouts is somewhat heavier. 𝓞 is extant here for the crucial part of the relative clause, and it reads “Son of Helaman who was”. There is another example in the text of “who/ which was called X” (where X is a person’s name): “and now Cohor had a son which was called Nimrod” (Ether 7:22). More commonly the text uses the phraseology “whose name was X” (25 times), as in Alma 62:43: “and Moroni yielded up the command of his armies into the hands of his son whose name was Moronihah”. But there are no examples of “whose name was called X”. Even so, there is one example of “the name of Y was called X”, in Ether 14:17: “now the name of the brother of Lib was called Shiz”. So “whose name was called Helaman” is not impossible. But 𝓞 is extant and there is no question that the original text for Alma 63:11 read “who was called Helaman”.
A second variant in 𝓟 resulted when Oliver Cowdery initially omitted the second instance of the past-participial called. Oliver first wrote “being after the name of his father”, then virtually immediately he inserted the missing called supralinearly (there is no change in the level of ink flow for this correction). 𝓞 is not extant here, but there is clearly room for the called in the lacuna. This expression is directly supported by the phraseology in Mosiah 24:3: “and now the name of the king of the Lamanites was Laman / being called after the name of his father”. The critical text will follow the corrected reading in 𝓟 for Alma 63:11, “being called after the name of his father”.
Summary: Maintain in Alma 63:11 the corrected reading in 𝓟, which agrees with the partially extant reading in 𝓞: “the son of Helaman who was called Helaman / being called after the name of his father”.