The construction “I would have you to do something” is quite archaic. In modern English we expect “I would have you do something” (providing, of course, we ignore the archaic use of the modal would in “I would have”). Thus one would expect the omission of the infinitive marker to here in 3 Nephi 7:24. The printer’s manuscript lacks the to, as does the 1953 RLDS edition, while the 1830 edition has the to. The original manuscript probably had the unexpected to.
There is one more case in the original text where such a use of the infinitival to can be found. In that case, the modal verb is the present-tense form will rather than the past-tense form would:
In addition, Joseph Smith created one more instance of this usage in his editing for the 1837 edition:
As explained under 2 Nephi 5:3, the critical text will restore the original “we will not that he shall be our ruler” in that passage.
The Oxford English Dictionary (see definition 18b under have) gives examples of this construction with the to in Early Modern English (the accidentals are modernized for these examples):
There are also examples of this usage in the King James Bible:
Thus there is nothing inappropriate about the 1830 reading with the to here in 3 Nephi 7:24.
The tendency in the history of the text has been to lose small words, so probably the 1830 reading is the correct one in 3 Nephi 7:24. There are quite a number of cases where the infinitival to has been added or lost in the transmission of the text, although most cases involve the repeated to in conjuncts of infinitive phrases (for a list of these examples, see under 3 Nephi 4:23). But here in 3 Nephi 7:24, the infinitival to is not one of these conjunctive cases. When we consider cases of nonconjunctive infinitival to, we find that Oliver Cowdery tended to accidentally omit the to but only momentarily; many of his examples created impossible readings, which were readily caught by him and corrected:
On the other hand, there is one instance where the 1830 typesetter accidentally added a nonconjunctive infinitival to:
In theory, then, the to could have been lost in 𝓟 or added in the 1830 edition. The critical text will assume that the more probable reading in 𝓞 was the more difficult one with the to and that Oliver Cowdery accidentally omitted it when he copied the text from 𝓞 into 𝓟.
Summary: Accept in 3 Nephi 7:24 the use of the archaic to in the expression “will/ would have someone to do something” (thus “now I would have you to remember also that …”).