Here in the printer’s manuscript, Oliver Cowdery initially wrote “and also the knowledge of Jesus Christ”—that is, without any preposition before “the knowledge”. Shortly thereafter, he supralinearly inserted the to with no change in the level of ink flow, but then he apparently redipped his quill when he wrote in the insert mark (it was written with a heavier ink flow). The virtual immediacy of the change argues that the original manuscript (which is not extant here) had the preposition to.
Elsewhere in the Book of Mormon text, we have numerous cases of the verb restore or the noun restoration being followed by either to or unto, with 25 occurrences of to and 17 of unto, so this distribution provides little evidence for determining the preposition here in 2 Nephi 30:5. Moreover, in five of these cases we have some kind of parallel coordination for the prepositional phrase after the verb restore or the noun restoration. In one case, the preposition is not repeated:
Notice here, however, that the “fold of God” is synonymous with “the true church”. Since they are the same entity, not only is the preposition to not repeated but neither is the definite article the. On the other hand, in the four other cases involving coordination, each pair of conjoined prepositional phrases combines distinct items, and in each instance the same preposition (either to or unto) is repeated in the original text:
These four examples suggest that the original text for 2 Nephi 30:5 could have read either “unto the knowledge of their fathers and also unto the knowledge of Jesus Christ” or “to the knowledge of their fathers and also to the knowledge of Jesus Christ”. In fact, the first of these two possibilities was actually introduced into the 1858 Wright edition for 2 Nephi 30:5. More generally, however, there is considerable evidence that with conjoined prepositional phrases, the first preposition can be unto and the second one to, as in the following nearby examples:
For a list of eight more examples of unto conjoined with to, see the discussion under 1 Nephi 13:38–39. Thus there is really nothing wrong with the corrected text in the printer’s manuscript for 2 Nephi 30:5. The fact that the supralinearly inserted to itself actually involved no change in the level of ink flow argues that the original manuscript also had to rather than unto for the repeated preposition.
Summary: Retain in 2 Nephi 30:5 the construction “unto X and also to Y” since such constructions occur elsewhere in the text, although not with the verb restore or the noun restoration.