The question here is which form should the conjoined verb take when the preceding verb has the paraphrastic auxiliary verb do. The current reading implies that two infinitives are conjoined (equivalent to “I did go forth and I did partake”). But the original reading conjoins two finite verbs (equivalent to “I did go forth and I partook”). Later in 1 Nephi 8, there are two more examples of the tendency to replace conjoined finite verbs with conjoined infinitives:
Oliver Cowdery and the 1830 typesetter are responsible for these changes. And Joseph Smith, in his editing of 1 Nephi 8:11 for the 1837 edition, made the printer’s manuscript agree with the reading of the 1830 edition.
We find that elsewhere the text allows three patterns for the conjoined verb phrase when the first verb has the auxiliary do. In the following list, I give an example of each pattern. In each case, I have selected an example where the first predicate is of the form “did go forth”:
the conjoined verb phrase also uses the auxiliary do:
the conjoined verb phrase has the infinitive verb form:
the conjoined verb phrase is in the simple past tense:
These examples show that all three patterns (A, B, and C) are possible. There has been no consistent editing out of the C type.
Summary: Follow the earliest textual sources in 1 Nephi 8:11, 22, 24 and restore the conjoined simple past-tense verb form in the context of a preceding past-tense verb phrase that uses the auxiliary do.