Here only part of the phrase “should point the way” is extant in the original manuscript. We can see from the extant portions that Oliver Cowdery first started to write towards the way (he wrote the to and then part of the w); then he crossed out the tow and inserted the supralinearly. Continuing inline, Oliver then wrote “way they should go”. The problem is that the portion of paper right before the supralinear the is now gone, so we cannot tell if Oliver also surpralinearly inserted to before the the. (There is room for only a twoor three-letter word, in any event.) If Oliver did insert to, he missed it when he copied the text into the printer’s manuscript—and usually Oliver did not miss copying into 𝓟 his supralinear insertions in 𝓞.
The small plates of Nephi contain a description of the Liahona that parallels the description here in Alma 37:
In this passage, there is no preposition, neither towards nor to, between the verb point and the way. This parallel expression thus supports the current text in Alma 37:40.
We also note that there is one difference. 1 Nephi 16:10 has the adverbial relative pronoun whither after the way, but Alma 37:40 does not. Nonetheless, the original manuscript is extant in Alma 37:40 for that portion of the text after the way, and clearly there is no whither or some other relative pronoun such as that or which after the way. Therefore, this slight difference between the two passages should be maintained.
Summary: Maintain in Alma 37:40 the current reading, “those spindles should point the way they should go” (that is, without any preposition before the way or any relative pronoun like whither before they should go).