Circumcision

[Guest Sachi001]

It one of those unanswerable that can potentially cause problems with people faith.

Why circumcise?

Why animal sacrifice?

Why did Jesus need to die?

Why was sacrifice the way to atone for sins, why not something else?

Seriously an unanswerable?

[bytor2112]

Israel was a male-based society. Women held a slightly different position. The covenant was with the men, not the women of Israel, therefore the outward symbol of the covenant had to be with the males.

The reason for circumcision is it represented a sacrifice. Anciently one "cut" a covenant, killing the animal by slicing its throat, and having the sacrifice as a testimony between the two parties. Life was symbolized by the genitals, as they brought forth life. It therefore made sense to cut a covenant by circumcising the child, versus sacrificing the child as other nations did to their gods (such as Molech).

This also set Israel apart from other nations. It symbolized that Israel had been made clean and separated from other nations who did not follow the covenant of Israel. Circumcised Israel = clean, uncircumcised Gentile nations = unclean.

Life symbolized by the ....genitals? So, the "cutter" made the covenant for the child....without the child's understanding or agreement? Wow...where is Snow....would so love to read his comments.

Edited July 26, 2011 by bytor2112

[volgadon]

You should check online if you can get the book of Shaye J.D. Cohen called "Why Aren't Jewish Women Circumcised?" Lots of research done there.

Thanks, I was trying to remember who wrote that! Cohen is a superb scholar of the ancient social history of Judaism.

One of the reasons for males being circumcised is that God covenanted with Abraham to give him physical, literal descendants and heirs. This is the main theme of the Abraham cycle. As Rameumptom pointed out, the male genitals were a symbol of vitality and fertility. Facsimile 2 of the Book of Abraham has a very graphic illustration of this.

God gave Abraham a token of the covenant (and his commitment to fulfilling it) in the very organ through which the promise would be fulfilled. An ancient Jewish tradition holds that God did not tell Abraham which part of the body was to be circumcised. Abraham pondered it until he saw a tree bearing fruit. The Hebrew word used for foreskin was also used of something unready, such as fruit on a tree. He reasoned that trees have foreskins where they bear fruit, then he should be circumcised where he bears fruits.

As to why women weren't involved, a partial answer can be found in Tikva Frymer-Kensky's "Reading the Women of the Bible." She was a feminist biblical scholar, but this work is a frank and non-judgemental look at the place of women in the Bible. Women weren't independant individuals, but an extension of first thier father, then their husband. A woman followed what her husband followed.

[rameumptom]

Bytor,

Unlike our personal covenants with God today, early Israel made the covenant as a people or nation together. This meant for the community to be clean, all had to follow the covenant. For this reason, the Law of Moses had stoning for those who broke the Law of the Sabbath - even including your animals would be stoned if they worked on that holy day.

[Seminarysnoozer]

See my categories are:

I need to know.

I want to know.

I would like to know.

It'd be neat to know.

It wouldn't hurt to know.

I don't care if I know.

I don't want to know. <- I'm not sure that applies to knowledge but rather experiences.

I put this question in the "It'd be neat to know" category but that's only because the question was asked of me. Before that it would be sitting in "wouldn't hurt", or "don't care" (if I'd thought of it) and after this thread has run its course is probably where it'll go until I forget it.

But also realize that what you are asking that would be "neat to know" is why some under the Abrahamic covenant at that time would follow this commandment for reasons less than faith and obedience.

In other words, it is like asking what are some of the other reasons besides faith and obedience people would obey the Word of Wisdom? ...like health reasons, to not kill animals etc.

You are suggesting it would be "neat to know" why some Jews, if they were not 100% doing it out of faith and obedience, might go along with it for ulterior motives. What are some of those lesser, ulterior motives? Yes, that may be interesting discussion .. I find it "interesting" but may not really have to do with God's purposes. Just so everyone reading this realizes, the question does not pertain to God's purposes for the token and the ordinances since you are suggesting things like identification, separation etc.. Right?

That is why, in part, it ultimately falls into the "I don't care" category.

Edited July 26, 2011 by Seminarysnoozer

[beefche]

SS, did you read the OP? He said in the original

Now I suspect there isn't a real answer to that and that it's similar to the LDS response concerning drinking tea, "We're commanded/have covenanted such."

P.S. I'm aware that circumcision is not religiously practiced by LDS, its requirement having been done away with.

Is that not clear enough that he isn't proposing we begin to circumsize our boys and that ultimately the answer for circumcision in the days of Abraham was because "God said so"?

[Dravin]

But also realize that what you are asking that would be "neat to know" is why some under the Abrahamic covenant at that time would follow this commandment for reasons less than faith and obedience.

Why the token of the covenat was to cut the penis is why some under the Abrahamic Covenant at the time would follow this commandment for reasons less than faith and obedience?

You are suggesting it would be "neat to know" why some Jews, if they were not 100% doing it out of faith and obedience, might go along with it for ulterior motives. What are some of those lesser, ulterior motives?

No I'm not. I'm left wondering if you're reading the same thread as I am.

Just so everyone reading this realizes, the question does not pertain to God's purposes for the token and the ordinances since you are suggesting things like identification, separation etc.. Right?

I'm asking about the symbolism behind God's choice of circumcision (which would pertain to his purposes). Our God is a symbolic God and I highly suspected he didn't pick the penis at random (just like the wearing of garments by this generation is not something picked at random without any symbolism) and that there was a symbolism involved. As has been kindly pointed out by Ram and Suzie in the thread already, there is a symbolism involved for circumcision versus some other conceivable option.

Edited July 26, 2011 by Dravin

[Backroads]

The only thing I could possibly contribute to this is a story of my identical twin brothers and how my dad took the same one twice for a circumcision thinking it was the brother...

[slamjet]

The only thing I could possibly contribute to this is a story of my identical twin brothers and how my dad took the same one twice for a circumcision thinking it was the brother...

I've got nothing

[Dravin]

SS, did you read the OP? He said in the original

Is that not clear enough that he isn't proposing we begin to circumsize our boys and that ultimately the answer for circumcision in the days of Abraham was because "God said so"?

Quite frankly I see it as a parallel to asking, "Why do LDS wear garments? Why not some other token? " Which any endowed member knows the answer to and it's not asking for the social reasons for members may wear garments aside from God's purposes, it's asking for God's purpose for choosing that particular token, if known. Which in the case of garments it is known (as it pertains to several aspects).

In the case of circumcision it is known, at least in Jewish theology, which I'm inclined to accept because it both makes sense and they're the ones who were given that token (so the symbolism would need to make sense to them), but I understand fully that the LDS theology may be different or may be, "Dunno."

Edited July 26, 2011 by Dravin

[Seminarysnoozer]

Why the token of the covenat was to cut the penis is why some under the Abrahamic Covenant at the time would follow this commandment for reasons less than faith and obedience?

No I'm not. I'm left wondering if you're reading the same thread as I am.

I'm asking about the symbolism behind God's choice of circumcision (which would pertain to his purposes). Our God is a symbolic God and I highly suspected he didn't pick the penis at random (just like the wearing of garments by this generation is not something picked at random without any symbolism) and that there was a symbolism involved. As has been kindly pointed out by Ram and Suzie in the thread already, there is a symbolism involved for circumcision versus some other conceivable option.

Please, don't get so defensive. I am simply pointing out that the purposes of the token are a sign of personal sacrifice and obedience. That whether the additional symbolism sinks into the mind of the person undergoing the ordinance or not, the obedience to the act is more important. That is all that I was saying. There are, as with most ordinances and lessons, various levels of understanding and motivations to uphold the covenants associated with them. One of the purposes of covenants is to serve as a test for which we can reveal our true natures to God. The man undergoing the circumcision out of pure obedience to the law at that time is passing the test with flying colors as opposed to the one who does it to "separate themselves" from others. Often times the ulterior motives associated with commandments are good ones, they aren't bad, they are simply lesser reasons to obey the commandment.

The primary reason for this ordinance was, as is with all ordinances, a test of obedience and faith to qualify to receive higher laws and privileges. The other stuff is secondary.

I find the secondary symbolism interesting. But realize that secondary symbolism is only necessary when primary love, faith and obedience are hard to come by. God being a loving God allows more of His children to receive the blessings associated with commandments for lesser reasons by associating some other motivation to them. All of us, in our line upon line growth, need that assistance at some point.

Edited July 26, 2011 by Seminarysnoozer

[Dravin]

I've got nothing

What a coincidence, that's what her brother's situation would have been if the Doctor hadn't have noticed...

[slamjet]

What a coincidence, that's what her brother's situation would have been if the Doctor hadn't have noticed...

Yup, I fell into that one.

[Seminarysnoozer]

SS, did you read the OP? He said in the original

Is that not clear enough that he isn't proposing we begin to circumsize our boys and that ultimately the answer for circumcision in the days of Abraham was because "God said so"?

I was agreeing with him. ... so yes I read it. I agree with him in that those additional symbolic reasons pertain to those people of that time and therefore it is simply an interesting topic that doesn't really apply to our day and the fullness of the gospel. It also makes it difficult to understand. Those that have studied the ancient religions may understand the mind of the Jew at that time and can add some hypothesis to the symbolic meaning. Those people needed additional motivations for obedience and therefore there is the assistance of symbolism to provide that motivation for obedience. What those people were motivated by might be difficult to comprehend at a level that God knows about, unless it is revealed by one that speaks with God.

Today, for example people are motivated by health decisions and therefore things like the Word of Wisdom carry specific, lower than obedience, meaning.

Likewise, the lower than pure obedience, reasons for participating the law of circumcision make it difficult to relate to in a modern day perspective. So, for us, it really doesn't matter. I don't think that is far off what the OP said.

I do find this topic interesting, I am not trying to say it is of no interest by any means. I just think it is hard to relate to our current level of knowledge and motivations that some try to do, such as circumcision for health reasons etc. That, for sure, was not on the list of motivating reasons to practice it. Just agreeing with the idea that symbolism is to assist our lower than obedience motivations and learning and remind us of our obligations as it relates to that specific covenant.

[Dravin]

Please, don't get so defensive.

It felt like you were attributing attitudes and purposes to me that weren't the case (even if you felt they were spin offs of what I was trying to ask). If your main purpose was to point out that ultimately the symbolism is less important than obedience and (if I'm reading your above post right) why you agree it's a neat to know not necessary to know answer/question if you'd just said so it would have been a lot more clear.

Quite frankly it read to me like you thought I was asking what non-covenant reasons would Jews have to be circumcised when my questions have been meant to be focused on God's purposes the whole time. So your WoW analogy, I've been seeking the answer of D&C 89:4 and it appeared you were saying I was asking about tannins.

Edited July 26, 2011 by Dravin

[Suzie]

I was agreeing with him. ... so yes I read it. I agree with him in that those additional symbolic reasons pertain to those people of that time and therefore it is simply an interesting topic that doesn't really apply to our day and the fullness of the gospel.

Phew..for a moment I thought you would say the famous "it's not important for our Salvation" but you kinda said it.

We discuss topics of this nature all the time on the boards, you consider the topic in the "I don't care" category (fair enough) however, it doesn't mean it falls in the same category for everyone else, not so?

[Seminarysnoozer]

Phew..for a moment I thought you would say the famous "it's not important for our Salvation" but you kinda said it.

We discuss topics of this nature all the time on the boards, you consider the topic in the "I don't care" category (fair enough) however, it doesn't mean it falls in the same category for everyone else, not so?

I am sorry if I came across to strong, that was not the intent. I think it is an interesting and thought provoking topic and anyone who has had interchanges with me on this forum know that I don't back away from interesting conversations.

I am having a hard time explaining this thought, I guess. I think that symbolism always requires putting it into the right context. The context of living under the mosaic law and having that lower, primitive mind set is something that most of us can't do with a flip of the switch, I would imagine. The teaching of that symbolism is no longer relevant in that way. Putting into a "Jewish tradition" context and interpretation is also not the whole picture.

Maybe I would liken it to trying to teach my kids how to do a literature search at the library without using computers. They would pay attention for 30 seconds and then ask, why don't you just search it on the internet?

The full meaning of the symbolism of this practice is lost in the setting of the fullness of the gospel and doing away with the lower law. Of course there are some lower law things that continued because they still are relevant, like baptism. Obviously, circumcision was a stepping stone for advancement that is simply stepped right over with the fullness of the gospel.

Anyone that has had more than one kid to raise understands this idea that sometimes things are taught one way to one kid and then another way to another child. But then the other child always wonders, 'well, why did you do that to my brother and not to me?' The symbolic benefit of circumcision is one that does not provide the same meaning to us in our day, so any discussion of it seems strange and not satisfactory. .... that is how I would explain it to this friend how originally asked the question without having to make some definitive statement about the Abrahamic mind at that time.

[Seminarysnoozer]

It felt like you were attributing attitudes and purposes to me that weren't the case (even if you felt they were spin offs of what I was trying to ask). If your main purpose was to point out that ultimately the symbolism is less important than obedience and (if I'm reading your above post right) why you agree it's a neat to know not necessary to know answer/question if you'd just said so it would have been a lot more clear.

You're right, sorry. I was also trying to make the additional note of it being hard to know without the right context ... see above.

[mordorbund]

Joseph Smith added some context in his translation:

And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.

And it came to pass, that Abram fell on his face, and called upon the name of the Lord.

And God talked with him, saying, My people have gone astray from my precepts, and have not kept mine ordinances, which I gave unto their fathers; And they have not observed mine anointing, and the burial, or baptism wherewith I commanded them; But have turned from the commandment, and taken unto themselves the washing of children, and the blood of sprinkling; And have said that the blood of the righteous Abel was shed for sins; and have not known wherein they are accountable before me.

As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee. And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.

And I will establish a covenant of circumcision with thee, and it shall be my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations; that thou mayest know for ever that children are not accountable before me until they are eight years old. And thou shalt observe to keep all my covenants wherein I covenanted with thy fathers; and thou shalt keep the commandments which I have given thee with mine own mouth, and I will be a God unto thee and thy seed after thee.

And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

This still doesn't answer why males only. I think it addresses some aspects of the symbol though (it's connection to the seed, why 8 days).

I seem to remember from my readings in Josephus that other cultures practiced circumcision. I think he was busting out Philo (?) for assuming the Jews were just Egyptians that left Egypt based on the fact that both were circumcised. Anybody else familiar with this?

[Dravin]

I seem to remember from my readings in Josephus that other cultures practiced circumcision. I think he was busting out Philo (?) for assuming the Jews were just Egyptians that left Egypt based on the fact that both were circumcised. Anybody else familiar with this?

The Bible Dictionary backs up that Egyptians practiced it:

Circumcision was not peculiar to Israel. It was practiced in Egypt, and also by nations with whom Israel had not come in contact.

Linky: Circumcision

[volgadon]

What a coincidence, that's what her brother's situation would have been if the Doctor hadn't have noticed...

There is a really funny old Israeli skit in the form of a radio interview with a former mohel, that is, circumciser.

-Why did you quit?

-Instead of bringing infants into Judaism I accidentally took them out of Judaism.

[volgadon]

The Bible Dictionary backs up that Egyptians practiced it:

See an ancient Egyptian illustration here http://www.dhushara.com/book/orsin/circ.jpg

[volgadon]

I think that symbolism always requires putting it into the right context. The context of living under the mosaic law and having that lower, primitive mind set is something that most of us can't do with a flip of the switch, I would imagine.

I would take exception with classifying those who follow and followed the Law of Moses as having a a lower, primitive mindset.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I would take exception with classifying those who follow and followed the Law of Moses as having a a lower, primitive mindset.

Why, when it is described as a lower law and a lower priesthood?

[Guest mysticmorini]

Why, when it is described as a lower law and a lower priesthood?

I concur I think primative, in a non derogatory sense, is the best way to discribe it.