Currently on the “Come Unto Christ” site, the official LDS web page for non-members to learn about the church, they have a “Summarized” list of the Articles of Faith. I found this odd as the original Articles of Faith has been touted as a short, concise list of what we believe. So why do they need to be further summarized? Using the Wayback machine internet archive, I determined that this new version of the Articles of Faith showed up sometime between Nov 1st and Nov 12th, 2016
So here is the summarized list
1. We believe in God the Father; His Son, Jesus Christ; and the Holy Ghost.
2. That men will be punished only for their own sins and not for Adam’s transgression.
3. That through Christ’s Atonement, we can be saved by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel.
4. That faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism by immersion, confirmation, and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost are all necessary for salvation.
5. That leaders and teachers in the Church must be chosen and ordained by priesthood power.
6. That Christ’s Church today is organized as it was when He first established it.
7. In modern-day revelation and priesthood healing and blessing.
8. That the Bible and Book of Mormon are both divinely revealed scripture.
9. That God has communicated with and will continue to communicate with humankind.
10. In the literal gathering of Israel and the restoration of the ten tribes, and that Zion will be built on the American continent when Christ reigns on the earth.
11. In worshipping God according to our own dictates and allowing others to do likewise.
12. In sustaining the laws and leaders of the land.
13. In being “honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men.”
Come Unto Christ Web Page [1]
Besides the simplified language, and the removal of about half the words, there were a few changes that stood out to me.
For article 6, the words Pastors and Evangelists are left out. Since we don’t use these titles anymore, maybe that is the reason they are left out?
In article 7. The gift of tongues, prophecy, visions, interpretation of tongues is removed. These are not talked about in the church anymore, and kind of make us seem strange.
In article 8, the “translated correctly” is removed. Is this so that people recognize that we treat the bible seriously? What other reason can you see for this removal?
In article 9 the idea that God will yet reveal “many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God” is removed. Is this just cleaning things up and making it simple for a world wide audience?
Finally in Article 13, they removed “If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.” Of course #13 was too long to begin with, and primary children are rejoicing world wide with this change.
So what do you think of these changes? Is the church trying to look more mainstream by taking out the things that set us apart from other Christian denominations, or is this really just a way to make things simple for somebody looking at the church for the first time.
Wheat & Tares 
I’m kinda stunned. These changes happened without any announcement. Over the next decade, I assume they will be slid into the church-wide curriculum. The changes seem appropriate to the church changes that have happened over time. Speaking in tongues has certainly fallen out of favor in Mormonism. Such behavior in a sacrament meeting in this modern era would probably lead to the 911 call.
Years ago, I was equally stunned when I found out that the LDS church is not the only church with Articles of Faith. A Baptist minister came up with a list of Articles of Faith in 1833 in New Hampshire. That list was very widely adopted within that time period and throughout that region.
The below link will lead to that list.. I found it interesting to compare.
https://www.bbfi.org/articles-of-faith
It seems likely that this is both simplifying (to make it easier to read and understand for a non-LDS visitor to the site) and whitewashing (taking out some of the LDS crazy stuff). Is that putting our best forward or is that misrepresentation? Tough call.
But simplifying also brings out certain meanings that we gloss over in the longer version. Zion to be built on the American continent when Christ reigns on Earth? What is the rest of the world, a junk heap? A land of outcasts? People who didn’t get visas to Zion?
The word changes to Article 11 seem pernicious. It takes out the role of conscience. “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience” empowers, even encourages, the membership to actually follow their own conscience. Corporations and institutions don’t have consciences, they have rules and policies, so the text is plainly speaking of individual conscience. But the simplified version eliminates conscience (how convenient). “Our own dictates” appears to reference Mormon rules and policies and commandments. It changes a claim of conscience into a demand that Mormons follow Mormon rules and other groups follow their rules. No conscientious objections allowed.
It seems awkward to have “We believe” on the first item and then we are suppose to assume that it is implied for the rest.
I’m adamantly opposed to this sort of thing. Monkeying with canonized words usually changes doctrine, which can be legitimate if done in the light of day and by common consent. But not anonymously,and smuggled in through the back door. Some of this stuff is rather significant. Take new #4 for example, where is says that faith, repentance, baptism, and gift of HG are “necessary for salvation.” In fact, we have little idea that’s the case. We do know that these first principles and ordinances comprise the covenant gateway to the Celestial Kingdom, i.e., exaltation. But we have no idea whether baptism or any other ordinance is required for any lesser degree of glory., i.e., salvation ( mere escape from death and hell).The omissions in AOF 7 and 9 also go beyond mere summary. They kind of lower the doctrinal bar on spiritual gifts and prophecy. — The internet has made getting a fix on Church doctrine feel like it’s subject to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. — If the Church really wants to increase understanding, it could loosen its death grip on KJ V.
The change in eight could eventually provide a cover for moving to a position that the Book of Mormon is inspired but not historical.
Another example of how the Church continues to distance itself from the original teachings of Joseph Smith and follow a course of apostasy.
The Mandela effect…especially for millenials who have not been indoctrinated on Articles.
Why is the Church engaging in so many back-door changes? The effort to slip the PoX into the Handbook of Instructions only failed because of the leak and focus of the change. Apparently the A of F don’t carry the same weight.
Many of the changes in text (#’s 4, 6, 8, 9, & 11) could have direct impact on doctrine. For example, does this now mean that we believe the Bible was translated correctly?
I believe these changes are being made to make us look more like mainstream Christianity. “Look, I’m just like you!”
Just a few comments and suggestions: 1) okay; 2) I don’t believe in a literal Adam so this one can be deleted or moved to the bottom of the list; 3) generally okay but I don’t like the emphasis on obedience; 4) as already pointed, they are important for exaltation and not salvation; 5) okay; 6) this is probably not true, but Clark G. disagrees with me; 7) i’m a bit of skeptic even on this toned down version; 8) I’m not a fan of the OT as scripture (some parts are good literature) and would prefer it say NT and BoM; 9) okay; 10) this one should just be deleted (who cares?); 11) okay; 12) this one is misquoted too frequently and needs caveats; and 13) I like the idea that the gospel encompasses all truth, that seems to be missing in the abridgment. I like the statement “doing good to all men” (and hopefully women). This one should be 1).
I really hope that this version never makes it onto the mainstream. The slight tinkering with 3 & 4 that they did back in the late 1800s was bad enough. I agree with everything that’s been said about the ommisions, and the “necessary for salvation” phrasing isn’t in the original at all.
As a summary of what’s taught in church these days, It’s fine, but these aren’t the Articles that the Prophet Joseph gave us.
Interesting that so many comments so far see this as an ominous change without common consent…. I rather see it as a sign of possible future change, but not an actual change. Is doesn’t concern me too much, yet.
WRT this*: “In article 9 the idea that God will yet reveal “many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God” is removed. Is this just cleaning things up and making it simple for a world wide audience?”
This is a bit concerning to me. I think it is a push for conservatism. This AoF has been cited by many people who advocate for change. Kate Kelley and Ordain Women come to mind. So leaving it out makes me think that someone wants to preserve the status quo. Now in general I’m not against the status quo, but neither am I for it. I just think that new ideas should be judged on their merits.
*I’m going to have to figure out how to do block quotes in these comments.
10. In the literal gathering of Israel and the restoration of the ten tribes, and that Zion will be built on the American continent when Christ reigns on the earth.
This is a fascinating one. At some point, leaders decided the gathering would no longer be a gathering to Missouri/Illinois/Utah, but rather members would gather in their stakes to strengthen locally. Thus, gathering was deemed to be local and figurative, not literal and not on the American continent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gathering_(LDS_Church)
The use of the word literal is itself confusing, as it can literally be it’s own opposite:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/misuse-of-literally
Now I’m okay people using literally to mean figuratively, or almost, or actually, or whatever is common in usage. But trying to use the word in a clear, succinct statement of belief is a bit problematic, or at least not very helpful.
I think it’s OK for a church to update the language of its statement of beliefs, or creed.
We should each write down our own personal creeds and update them as our beliefs change.
How did you even find this summary? The only way I did was by doing a search for “articles of faith” and then clicking on the first result. Otherwise, clicking on the “Believe” tab at the top of the page and scrolling to the bottom shows all the articles of faith in their entirety. Just saying that unless I’m missing something, the only you’d see this summary is if you were actively looking for it.
That said, I do find this interesting,
12–“In sustaining the laws and leaders of the land.”
That’s not what the actual article of faith states as to leaders of the land, unless all “sustaining” means is “being subject to.” Is that what’s really meant when we’re asked to sustain the prophet?
Seems like the revised Article 10 pushes back the establishment of zion until after Jesus returns
I generally like the changes. As has been said, they leave out some of the crazy and in my view makes us more palatable to the 21st century. That being said some of the changes are potentially troublesome.
Phil–I also think it’s ok for a church to update the language of its statement of beliefs. I just think it would be nice if the members of that church were informed if, when, and how their beliefs, or creed, had changed.
Is this official? I haven’t heard about this over here in Europe. But I do realise a lot of the things that go on in UT never reach over the Atlantic Ocean. Sometimes it feels like we are living a completely different church experience.
I do get the feeling a lot of things are changed in an “under the table” way. Let’s not draw too much attention to it, so we don’t receive too much push back on it – kind of thing. Curious. A lot of people over here did not know the Prop 8 has been reversed for instance. People in Europe that ‘only’ go to church on sundays and never lurk on LDS blogs and fora online simply do not know.
I believe that the church is doing frequent gaslighting at present. I was offended at Ballard’s comments about baptisms.
However, in this case I do not see it.i went to the website and blue book lcon and when you go to each page, it has the summaries of articles of faith. But not deleted the verbiage you noted. Maybe elsewhere on the site. In this case I do not see any changes.
I will say the church now has so many web sites and links no one could ever keep track of it all .
It all just seems so complicated. It’s like writing and re-writing something. I have, throughout my career, edited various documents. If you ask for edits, then re-ask for edits, then ask again, you will continually get differing answers. But the flip side of that is that these documents, and ourselves, are continually growing and “editing” our lives and thinking. Change is usually good?
One comment regarding number 5: Leaders in the church must be ordained by priesthood power. Priesthood power as if currently stands? Any room for improving “priesthood power”?
“priesthood power” is an interesting concept in this context. Lately I’ve been reminded of distinctions made (recently by President Oaks, I believe) between “priesthood power” and “priesthood authority.” I suspect whoever wrote this summary, was not thinking of any such distinction. I don’t regard the summary as a change. I believe it is intended only to be a summary, though making significant omissions as summaries generally do and making some unfortunate mistakes (in my absolutely non-authoritative view)..
An aside, but I have often thought that #2 would be more truthful to the church’s actual practice and teachings if it said “We believe that men will be punished for their own sins and not for Adam’s transgression, but women will be punished for Eve’s” or something to the effect. What is not said in that A of F has huge consequences – may as well put words to it so we can face it head on instead of pretend (very, very poorly) that we are gender-equal.
I’m saddened: the inclusion of Philippians 4:8 in #13 was always something I found to be beautiful. I’ve encountered multiple people in my life who broadened their horizons of art and culture after I suggested that AoF 13 encouraged us to seek out loveliness and praiseworthiness rather than find reasons to shield themselves from everything that wasn’t a church video. If we’re going to reduce #13 to a semblance of a youth pledge, it’s makes for a self-fulfilling state of ignorance.
Let’s just call this what it is…. Its a fundamental changing of the basic tenants of our faith. This is otherwise known as removing a bit of the crazy stuff. #3 is still fundamentally flawed theology. Hard to change it without removing entirely. The concept that Christs Atonement is an enabling rather than a saving act is fundamentally misunderstood application of basic Christian theology. Through the Atonement of Christ we are saved by obedience to laws and ordinances…
#8 is problematic. Especially since the Church is in the process of completely discarding the notion that Joseph did ANY actual translation. The new take is that it was revelation filtered through Joseph.
Has someone proposed replacing the canonized Articles of Faith with this website summary?
If not, how is it a fundamental change in basic tenets of the faith rather than a potentially misleading summary, like any other summary?
I just looked on ComeUntoChrist.org and it says above the list “ …a SUMMARY of … .You left that out. The Articles of Faith are scripture found in the Pearl Of Great Price, unchanged. I’m disappointed and a little sad to see your article may be attempting to turn good people away from important doctrine.