Why does the Book of Mormon call Jesus the Father?

Abinadi really does call the Redeemer both Father and Son. He connects the Son title to dwelling in flesh and describes the flesh submitting to the Spirit. The title needs an explanation.

You grant the wording that makes the objection serious before proposing an interpretation.

Abinadi never calls Jesus the Father. He only talks about Heavenly Father.

The Redeemer is the subject of the passage. Abinadi applies both titles to Him and explains them.

Jesus says His followers can become His children in Ether 3. In 3 Nephi He calls Himself the Creator and says He was with the Father from the beginning. Those passages let us distinguish what Jesus does as Father from who His Father is.

You use the surrounding evidence for both the title and the relationship.

Every time the Book of Mormon says Father it is using exactly the same title in exactly the same way.

Compare the Creator title, Christ’s children in Ether, and the Father with whom Jesus says He was from the beginning.

The 1837 wording really did add “the Son of” in parts of 1 Nephi. The 1830 printing already has the Father introduce the Son in 3 Nephi. I’d distinguish the documented edits from claims about why they were made.

You grant the change and use the earliest edition to test what the change could have introduced.

The passage about the Father introducing the Son was added in 1837 too.

You can already read that introduction on page 476 of the 1830 edition.