bytebear

Divinely inspired works change for lots of reasons.  As I said in the other thread (repeating myself again), the original work written by Nephi was transcribed by Mormon/Moroni then by Joseph Smith, then to the printer's copy, then to the printed book.  Then second editions, etc.  We only have the records back to the printer's copy, so we can't even make it be the exact to any version before that if we wanted to.

I found this article while trying to find another one.  It's pretty good, and I think it answers your question fairly well, and I hope it eases your concerns.
https://www.lds.org/ensign/1983/12/understanding-textual-changes-in-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng
I did think it interesting that there are already tons of resources and answers out there to this exact concern, so we've clearly gone down this road before.

I think the biggest difference is our belief in a pre-mortal existence, not just for ourselves, but for Jesus.   And correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe traditional Christians view Jesus as being a part of the essence of God, made human, and so, Jesus isn't the Father, but he isn't altogether separate either.  And it's really hard to explain the separateness.  In Mormonism, it's much easier.  Jesus was Jehovah, a separate spirit being (still God) always separate from the Father, from the beginning. 
The other aspect that is different is the notion that we also were premortal spirits, on the same plane as Jesus/Jehovah, but clearly not of the same spiritual identity.  We were and are never perfect, nor "God the son".  So, Christians see God becoming as man, walking and interacting.  But Mormons believe that interaction existed in pre-mortal spirit form.

There are several possible answers. 
1) The original manuscript/translation had it as "son of God" but it got changed in the printers manuscript and/or publication. 
2) Smith saw the scripture through the eyes of one who understands the role of Christ as the son of God, and believed the verse was more logical to his understanding, and not to Nephi's Old Testament understanding of God.
3) Joseph Smith was inspired/called by God to clarify the verse (going back to reason 2), which is my belief.

Here's a question for you.   Can a modern prophet clarify scripture?   Could a NT apostle and or Christ himself interpret OT scripture giving it different meaning than was commonly thought?  (i.e. confound the Pharisees)?  
A quick Google search says that at least one non-LDS Bible scholar believes so.
https://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Verses-Clarified-Old/dp/0982707096
 

See, this confuses me. 

See, this confuses me. 

Just as with any publication over time, there are errors in transcription. The 1981 edition was the first that tried to correct the various changes over time, and used the earliest manuscripts as well as Smith's notes and corrections, including the "God" to "Son of God".  Since Smith didn't explain why he annotated that change, we can't assume it was not in the original manuscript, or if it was changed for clarity.  Either way, I think it actually makes more sense the way it is now.
Here's a list of the editions of the Book of Mormon printed up to 1981, with a short description of how it was compiled and what was changed/corrected.
http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Book_of_Mormon_Editions_(1830-1981)

Divinely inspired works change for lots of reasons.  As I said in the other thread (repeating myself again), the original work written by Nephi was transcribed by Mormon/Moroni then by Joseph Smith, then to the printer's copy, then to the printed book.  Then second editions, etc.  We only have the records back to the printer's copy, so we can't even make it be the exact to any version before that if we wanted to.

Thank you I feel like I am having to repeat myself too  

I will repeat my statements from the other thread.  The change reflects a change from an Old Testament understanding of God, to a New Testament understanding of God/Trinity.

It's unfortunate.  A lot of Mormons are very anti-polygamy, and don't want to compare Joseph (or Brigham for that matter) with the likes of Warren Jeffs, who's version of "plural marriage" is utterly corrupt and evil.  And I think Brigham gets a pass because 1) he was open about it, 2) he had children and cohabited with some of his wives, and 3) he was boisterous and larger than life.   But there is definitely a difference between the way Smith was sealed to women and how polygamy was practiced in Utah.   And that needs to be taken into consideration. 
As to the ladies in the church, well you ruffled some feathers in the hen house, but don't worry, there will always be a few who will be there for you to smooth things over.  We are a social church as much as a spiritual one, and if they see you are serious about being part of the community, which a ward really is, they will open up more to you.   Don't be afraid to speak up and don't stop going.

It's unfortunate.  A lot of Mormons are very anti-polygamy, and don't want to compare Joseph (or Brigham for that matter) with the likes of Warren Jeffs, who's version of "plural marriage" is utterly corrupt and evil.  And I think Brigham gets a pass because 1) he was open about it, 2) he had children and cohabited with some of his wives, and 3) he was boisterous and larger than life.   But there is definitely a difference between the way Smith was sealed to women and how polygamy was practiced in Utah.   And that needs to be taken into consideration. 
As to the ladies in the church, well you ruffled some feathers in the hen house, but don't worry, there will always be a few who will be there for you to smooth things over.  We are a social church as much as a spiritual one, and if they see you are serious about being part of the community, which a ward really is, they will open up more to you.   Don't be afraid to speak up and don't stop going.

It's unfortunate.  A lot of Mormons are very anti-polygamy, and don't want to compare Joseph (or Brigham for that matter) with the likes of Warren Jeffs, who's version of "plural marriage" is utterly corrupt and evil.  And I think Brigham gets a pass because 1) he was open about it, 2) he had children and cohabited with some of his wives, and 3) he was boisterous and larger than life.   But there is definitely a difference between the way Smith was sealed to women and how polygamy was practiced in Utah.   And that needs to be taken into consideration. 
As to the ladies in the church, well you ruffled some feathers in the hen house, but don't worry, there will always be a few who will be there for you to smooth things over.  We are a social church as much as a spiritual one, and if they see you are serious about being part of the community, which a ward really is, they will open up more to you.   Don't be afraid to speak up and don't stop going.

Thank you, this makes the most sense to me, and thank you everyone who gave links and serious answers, I do appreciate it and I will read them all

I can see that.  From an LDS perspective I think we do think of God the Father and Jesus as separate enough to distinguish them in scripture.  I think this example shows a NT perspective on God being applied to an OT author.  Let me explain.  Nephi lived in 600 BC.  He knew about a coming messiah, but didn't really have the concept of the Trinity as we think of it.  Neither did the OT prophets. Isaiah prophecies of the coming savior, but he never quite equates him with God incarnate, or the Godhead/Trinity.  Nephi had the writings of Isaiah, so he would be familiar with the prophecies.   Now, remember that Mormon/Moroni/Joseph Smith all had a role in editing the text of Nephi, and we really don't know if the original text had "son of God", but for the sake of argument, let's assume it did not.  So, as far as we know, Joseph Smith went through the manuscript and the first printed 1830 edition, and saw things that he considered either in error, or at least in need of clarification.  So, from his perspective, particularly as he learned more about the nature of the trinity and maybe particularly the identity of Jehovah (from an LDS perspective) he perhaps, chose to clarify the verses.  I think it makes more sense if we read it as a NT book, but the original fits more with the OT style.  It's almost like how Jehovah (at least in the KJV) is translated as LORD, but Eloheim is translated as God or LORD God.  What if your transation of the Bible had "God" everywhere, but someone decided to change all the Jehovah instances into LORD.  We'd have a slightly nuanced change, that many people might consider degrading, changing God to merely a Lord.

Indeed  take a religious Jew today they have one God JEHOVAH who on occasion does things by his spirit.  They generally see all this Christan Father, Son, and Spirit as polytheistic and anti scriptural.  It wasn't until Christ and his claims to have a Father that the   Christan understanding of God takes shape.(Father, Son, and Holy Spirit )
Therefor to expect an pre-Christ Jew to express God in terms like "Son of God" would be signs of false-hood, such an experience would be so far from their scriptural and cultural norms as to require a profound explanation.  From appearance Nephi did not use the term Son of God.  Which is exactly what we would expect from him.  Joseph Smith as post Christ Christan would though.  And as he looks over the translation work looking to clarify and correct mistakes could easily tell which one Nephi was talking from context and could add the correct clarification to the text to not confuse the Christians reading the Jewish work

Ugh, I hate that.   One of my best friends is named Kirk, and it all just screws with my head.

I can see that.  From an LDS perspective I think we do think of God the Father and Jesus as separate enough to distinguish them in scripture.  I think this example shows a NT perspective on God being applied to an OT author.  Let me explain.  Nephi lived in 600 BC.  He knew about a coming messiah, but didn't really have the concept of the Trinity as we think of it.  Neither did the OT prophets. Isaiah prophecies of the coming savior, but he never quite equates him with God incarnate, or the Godhead/Trinity.  Nephi had the writings of Isaiah, so he would be familiar with the prophecies.   Now, remember that Mormon/Moroni/Joseph Smith all had a role in editing the text of Nephi, and we really don't know if the original text had "son of God", but for the sake of argument, let's assume it did not.  So, as far as we know, Joseph Smith went through the manuscript and the first printed 1830 edition, and saw things that he considered either in error, or at least in need of clarification.  So, from his perspective, particularly as he learned more about the nature of the trinity and maybe particularly the identity of Jehovah (from an LDS perspective) he perhaps, chose to clarify the verses.  I think it makes more sense if we read it as a NT book, but the original fits more with the OT style.  It's almost like how Jehovah (at least in the KJV) is translated as LORD, but Eloheim is translated as God or LORD God.  What if your transation of the Bible had "God" everywhere, but someone decided to change all the Jehovah instances into LORD.  We'd have a slightly nuanced change, that many people might consider degrading, changing God to merely a Lord.

I think we need to change our approach.  Watch the experiment at the 5 minute mark.
(we all need to stop being defensive)

Can we get on topic.  We should fork Joseph Smith polygamy to a separate thread.
 
Blossom, is your concern just that the Book of Mormon has changed over time? Or are you concerned with specific changes?  You had mentioned the change from "God" to "son of God". How does that change the meaning of the verse to you?

I think we need to change our approach.  Watch the experiment at the 5 minute mark.
(we all need to stop being defensive)

Can we get on topic.  We should fork Joseph Smith polygamy to a separate thread.
 
Blossom, is your concern just that the Book of Mormon has changed over time? Or are you concerned with specific changes?  You had mentioned the change from "God" to "son of God". How does that change the meaning of the verse to you?

I believe they were sealed to Joseph Smith Sr.   making them defacto brother, but I would have to look it up.

I think we need to change our approach.  Watch the experiment at the 5 minute mark.
(we all need to stop being defensive)