Just a note here, dberrie....your church made a change to the revealed text that wasn't in the original. That is a problem. Clarifications should always be in marginal notes or cross references, not a deliberate change to the text itself.
Thye original "plates" don't exist. At least they aren't available. The translation method was a face in the hat and seer stones, so the only original document we have is what Salt Lake may have squirreled away in the vaults. You don't make "corrections" like that to the most correct book. And BOJ's cop-out of Smith having editorial license is just plain horse hockey.
The LDS believe the reference of "everlasting Father" can be applied to God the Son--regardless of what you believe about any change.
So did the OT writers:
Isaiah 9:6---King James Version
6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.