Article of Faith #11 Omitted, hmm...?

Interestingly, the LDS “Articles of Faith” known today to have 13 articles was originally 14.
Number 11 was apparently removed by the Mormons because…who knows?“We believe in the literal resurrection of the body, and that dead
of Christ will rise first, the rest of the dead live not again until the
thousand years are expired.[size=5]”[/size][INDENT][INDENT][INDENT][INDENT][INDENT][INDENT][INDENT]– Joseph Smith[/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT]Anybody have any idea?

He was superseded by a latter day prophet. Just a guess, but they have on-going revelation, so the sky is the limit.

Do you have a citation for this?

The LDS officially believe in continuing revelation. Thus, much of what they believe is subject to change.

A citation for my guess? Sure: myself.

“Joseph Smith Begins His Work”, Volume 2, Reproduction of the original *
Book of Commandments*, Doctrine & Covenants, Lectures on Faith, and *
Fourteen Articles of Faith*, published by Wilford C. Wood, best known for
his purchase of several Church history sites and artifacts.

Thanks! I had never heard of 14 Articles of Faith before, and I couldn’t find anything online from a preliminary search. Wilford C. Wood is a big name among Mormons too, so it’s certainly a credible source.

Do you have a copy of the book? If so, could you provide some excerpts?

Yes I do.
I recommend picking a copy up for yourself, because you may not believe
the excerpts I am about to bring up. (By the way, you will find one excerpt
in the first post, omitted from modern versions). Here they are… SECTION CI.
MARRIAGE.
4…Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the
crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that
one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband,
except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.
-Doctrine and Covenants, 1835 Edition[INDENT](I haven’t gone much further in Volume 2)
[/INDENT]From Volume 1 giving the 1830 Book of Mormon: 1st Nephi 11:1 read “upon which I never before sat my foot”[INDENT] Was changed to “upon which I never had before set my foot”
1st Nephi 11:18 read “the virgin which thou seest , is the mother of God.” Was changed to “the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God.”
1st Nephi 11:32 read “the Everlasting God, was judged of the world…” Was changed to “*the Son of *the Everlasting God was judged of the world.”
1st Nephi 12:18 read “and Jesus Christ, which is the Lamb of God” Was changed to “and the Messiah who is the Lamb of God”
1st Nephi 13:32 read “the Gentiles shall forever remain in that state of awful woundedness” Was changed to “that awful state of blindness.”
1st Nephi 13:40 read “the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Savior of the world” Was changed to “the lamb of God is *the Son of *the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world.”
In 1st Nephi 20:1 these words were added to the text, never appearing in the original “straight from God” text: “or out of the waters of baptism”
2nd Nephi 12:9 read “the mean man boweth down”[LEFT] Was changed to “the mean man boweth not down”
[/LEFT]
2nd Nephi 30:6 read: “they shall be a white and delightsome people” Was changed in 1981 to “they shall be a pure and delightsome people.”
Mosiah 21:28 read “**King Benjamin **had a gift from God”
[LEFT] But what changed to “**King Mosiah **had a gift from God.”

[/LEFT]
Alma 5:48 read “the Son* of the only begotten* of the Father”[LEFT] Was changed to “the Son, the Only Begotten of the Father”.
[/LEFT]
Book of Alma, p. 303, 1830: “yea, I know that he allotteth unto men, yea, decreeth unto them decrees which are unalterable according to their wills.”[LEFT]1950: Alma 29:4: “yea, I know that he allotteth unto men according to their wills.”
[/LEFT]
[INDENT] Today: Alma 29:4: “yea, I know that he allotteth unto men, yea, decreeth unto them decrees which are unalterable according to their wills.”
[/INDENT]And where it read in Ether 4:1 “and for this cause did King Benjamin keep them,” It was changed to read “and for this cause did King Mosiah keep them.”
[/INDENT]

Thanks again. I’ve already known about the alterations to the Book of Mormon, but the AoF stuff is new to me. I may take a stroll to the library and check out that book.

Wow! We are NOT to be altering something if it’s true to begin with! Gosh!

I didn’t know a lot of this!

Plus, the Watchtower keeps constantly changing its position!

As it turns out, the only thing that discredits the Mormons is the Book of Mormon. I have a free copy of the BoM from a Marriott stay last year, but only so that no one else would read that copy. Personally, the Ring Series makes much more sense and is much more likely to have actually happened.

Book of Mormon, Most Correct Book, or Most Corrected Book? :smiley:

I didn’t know about the extra article of faith. Thanks for the information and the citation. I wonder why it was removed. This article of faith doesn’t appear to go against any Mormon doctrines. Interesting.

You mean you stole a copy of the Book of Mormon. This is no different than stealing a Gideon’s Bible or the bathroom towels, even if the LDS Church would’ve otherwise given you a free copy.

:smiley:

Same here. I remember a fireside from many decades ago where I first heard about there being different “Articles of Faith”, but that these different versions were actually penned by different people, before Joseph Smith’s Wentworth Letter was officially published in the Pearl of Great Price in the 1850s (I believe). I believe it was Sydney Rigdon who penned the “16 Articles of Faith”, so I wonder if this list of 14 was also authored by another person, or if it was Joseph Smith’s original.

It just might, I don’t know, Joseph Smith’s doctrines were evolving, might have something to do with that Exaltation deal.

It seems that Article 11 was removed after it was discovered that Joseph and several close associates had been practicing polygyny and polyandry for several years when that Article was written and published by Joseph Smith. IOW, Joseph was caught in a lie.

So the Article was quietly excised (without a sustaining vote by the membership).

The excerpt below is from FAIR LDS fairlds.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/brown-Articles_of_Faith.pdf

I hope this helps…

The so-called “fourteenth” Article of Faith (which speaks of the resurrection) first appeared in the 1849 pamphlet Mormonism Triumphant, written by James H. Flanigan. This pamphlet was published by the British Mission in Liverpool, England, and in it Elder Orson Pratt—the mission President—took Joseph Smith’s Articles of Faith from the Wentworth letter and not only added an extra Article to the list but he also embellished what the Prophet had already written. Anti-Mormons try to give Pratt’s modified Articles some kind of special ‘authority’ by pointing out that Elder Orson Hyde republished it in an LDS newspaper in 1850. But it must be remembered that only six months after Joseph Smith published the Wentworth letter Elder Hyde published his own set of sixteen “Articles of Faith and Points of Doctrine,” showing that even at this point in time a summary of LDS Church beliefs had not been set in stone. When Elder Franklin D. Richards published the first edition of the Pearl of Great Price in 1851 he included the Articles of Faith from the Prophet’s Wentworth letter, thus indicating its value over Pratt’s expanded version. Private versions of the Articles of Faith continued to be circulated in various parts of the world until they became obsolete in 1880 when the Pearl of Great Price was canonized and the Prophet’s Articles from the Wentworth letter took precedence over all others.

What about “Article 11”, written by Joseph Smith, which publicly denies that the Mormons were practicing plural marriage while at the same time Joseph himself had many wives, many of whom were already married to other men?

The man was a liar and a coward - no way around that.

I think you’re confusing Article 11 with SECTION CI of the original D&C.
You point still stands though. :slight_smile:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.