Circumcision

[Seminarysnoozer]

You still haven't explained what you mean by "as given" and if you don't know, then how come you claim that I'm wrong.

A major world religion does, despite your baseless assertions to the contrary.

.

It is given through one that has recieved the authority to do so, directly from God. If you believe that the major world religion that you believe is living the law of Moses right now, according to what you are saying, is doing so under the direct power of God and continued priesthood authority, given through His authority (not passed on by someone who doesn't have the authority), then we are simply on different pages.

The idea that there is another religion besides one that has been given God's authority is foreign to me. I don't see that as a condescending, arrogant idea that you are making it out to be. I would say most in the LDS religion see it that way. I realize that many people would say that believing that there is only one religion (and therefore only one body of authority to perform covenants with God at a time) that is true and has God given authority is arrogant. That is not a new accusation to mormons.

[volgadon]

The law of Moses, I believe, was a living gospel just like our current gospel is a living gospel.

The Law of Moses was a set of observations and prohibitions which the children of Israel were to abide by. You are muddling the issue by viewing it through the lense of your own modern-day experience, a time and place far removed from those of the Bible.

[volgadon]

It is given through one that has recieved the authority to do so, directly from God.

Ok, so by "as given" you didn't mean in a form like it was in originally, you mean rather that if there isn't a prophet it doesn't exist. ok, whatever...

If you believe that the major world religion that you believe is living the law of Moses right now, according to what you are saying, is doing so under the direct power of God and continued priesthood authority, given through His authority (not passed on by someone who doesn't have the authority), then we are simply on different pages.

We must be on different pages because you adamantly refuse to listen. For the last time, I am not stating that Judaism has continued priesthood authority. I must say that you are the only person I have ever met who doesn't believe that the Law of moses is central to Judaism, and that it (the Law) doesn't exist anymore.

The idea that there is another religion besides one that has been given God's authority is foreign to me.

Lets see if I understand what you are trying to say. Choose the option that best expresses your point.

A) God has given his authority to one religion, hence no other religion exists.

B) Only one religion has God's authority.

I don't see that as a condescending, arrogant idea that you are making it out to be.

Are you telling me that you wouldn't find it arrogant, condescending, and insulting if a Jew or Muslim were to state that Christianity, especially LDS beliefs, are for people with a primitive, lower mindset?

I would say most in the LDS religion see it that way.

If that be the case then I am happy to be in the minority.

I realize that many people would say that believing that there is only one religion (and therefore only one body of authority to perform covenants with God at a time) that is true and has God given authority is arrogant. That is not a new accusation to mormons.

Which is not at all what I am saying. I don't find that belief offensive, it is however a far cry from saying that people who aren't part of it have a primitive, lower mindset.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Ok, so by "as given" you didn't mean in a form like it was in originally, you mean rather that if there isn't a prophet it doesn't exist. ok, whatever...

We must be on different pages because you adamantly refuse to listen. For the last time, I am not stating that Judaism has continued priesthood authority. I must say that you are the only person I have ever met who doesn't believe that the Law of moses is central to Judaism, and that it (the Law) doesn't exist anymore.

Lets see if I understand what you are trying to say. Choose the option that best expresses your point.

A) God has given his authority to one religion, hence no other religion exists.

B) Only one religion has God's authority.

Are you telling me that you wouldn't find it arrogant, condescending, and insulting if a Jew or Muslim were to state that Christianity, especially LDS beliefs, are for people with a primitive, lower mindset?

If that be the case then I am happy to be in the minority.

Which is not at all what I am saying. I don't find that belief offensive, it is however a far cry from saying that people who aren't part of it have a primitive, lower mindset.

Again, I apologize for my poor choice of words. I am sincerely apologizing to anyone who might be offended by those words, I am hunting for a better way to explain my point of view.

With that in mind, if you could look beyond the offense, let me try to restate it a different way with some other sources. ...

You may think that I am way off in left field but pretty much everyone I have spoken to about this concept, including my husband, bishop and our gospel doctrine teacher agree that the Law of Moses ended with the death of Christ. And the law of Moses was given for an apostate group to help them remember God. Moses, of course, was not apostate but the law was for an apostate people to attempt to sanctify them enough that they could go back to the higher law. They all also agreed that the law of Moses as given to Moses was to be run under the lesser priesthood. The same priesthood which John the Baptist had. The law of Moses and its covenants had to be performed under priesthood authority and several of the prophets and maybe even seventies had the Melchezedek priesthood. They all agreed that there is no other body of priesthood authority than that which was restored through Joseph Smith at this time that we know about in this dispensation. They all agreed that Judaism does not have priesthood authority to perform binding covenants with God, and therefore there is no one living the law of Moses today.

D&C 84:23-38 “23Now this Moses plainly taught to the children of Israel in the wilderness, and sought diligently to sanctify his people that they might behold the face of God;

24But they hardened their hearts and could not endure his presence; therefore, the Lord in his wrath, for his danger was kindled against them, swore that they should not enter into his rest while in the wilderness, which rest is the fulness of his glory.

25Therefore, he took Moses out of their midst, and the Holy Priesthood also;

26And the lesser priesthood continued, which priesthood holdeth the key of the ministering of angels and the preparatory gospel;

27Which gospel is the gospel of repentance and of baptism, and the remission of sins, and the law of carnal commandments, which the Lord in his wrath caused to continue with the house of Aaron among the children of Israel until John, whom God raised up, being filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother’s womb.

28For he was baptized while he was yet in his childhood, and was ordained by the angel of God at the time he was eight days old unto this power, to overthrow the kingdom of the Jews, and to make straight the way of the Lord before the face of his people, to prepare them for the coming of the Lord, in whose hand is given all power.”

My gospel doctrine teacher told me that the Kingdom of the Jews was overthrown and that all power was given to Christ, in other words, it is not divided to other religions or churches or bodies of priesthood. He also explained that the law of Moses is difficult to understand for most of us because it was written for “nonbelievers” and apostate individuals. … maybe my choice of words was not correct, for that I apologize. What I was trying to get at was that, though. That is difficult to appreciate the meaning of those tokens unless we are in that same situation. I think that situation is difficult to reproduce, in our minds, now that we have the fullness of the gospel and believe in Christ already. The purpose of the token becomes lost once the objective of it is beyond achieved which is to prepare for the higher law.

My speech comes from bits and pieces I have read and heard while in the church which includes what Stephen says about the Sanhedrin, the Jewish experts of his day, that they are uncircumcised of heart. I think Gib Kocherhans says it well in Reflections of the Law of Moses: Old Testament Apostasy in Context ; (Taken from LDS.org) “ A people in deep apostasy perceive God differently than do the faithful. With their apostasy from the everlasting covenant as recorded in Exodus, Israel’s perception of God’s love and mercy become less clear as they are taught the meaning of law and justice. Then in the books of Numbers, Judges, and Kings, when Israel apostatizes even from the Law of Moses, the light dims still further. Israel as a people lose their perception of God’s just and lawful nature, and instead seem to see and experience only his power. His ministry among them, therefore, becomes what we might term a more general one, in which Israel’s relationship to God in some ways does not seem so very different from God’s relationships with other people of the earth outside the gospel covenant.

Thus, God’s work with people “in the world” seems at times akin to his work with Israel during the Mosaic dispensation. This understanding is often unrecognized by modern readers because of the textual significance and stress given to God’s work among the prophets and other scriptural peoples who were faithful. Consequently, the profound apostasy of Old Testament Israel provides an unusual background against which this more general ministry may be seen. But we will be confused by it if we try to understand it from our Latter-day point of view, imposing our standards of spirituality on a disobedient and spiritually immature people.”

Earlier in that article he also says; “Originally, the Law of Moses was given to Israel “to keep them in remembrance of God and their duty towards him” (Mosiah 13:30); it was, in Paul’s words, a “schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ” (Gal. 4:24; also 2 Ne. 11:4). But the vast majority of Old Testament Israelites did not receive Christ because they failed to observe the Law of Moses with full heart; and thus, although as a people they were of the seed and lineage of covenant Israel, they were not generally, in matters of faith, “early-day Saints,” as we may be inclined to perceive them. Rather, they were often more like nonmembers—and sometimes they could not even be regarded as serious investigators.

The overview of all this is that Israel as a people is not just frequently in apostasy in the Old Testament; she never really emerges from the apostasy of her Egyptian captivity because, as a people, Israel never receives the gospel of Jesus Christ as she would have done if she had been faithful to the Law. (Particular individuals and the prophets were faithful, but these were generally a small minority.) Thus, as we read of God’s dealings with Israel as recorded in the Old Testament, we would be in error to expect an account similar to those scriptures which tell us of God’s dealing with people who were generally faithful to their covenants.”

I think the true test of whether someone lived the unaltered law of Moses while it was needed was their acceptance of Christ and graduation to the higher law when it was made available like what happened to the Nephites.

"Primitive mindset" I guess was my poor choice of words to represent something more descriptive today than what Stephen said, "uncircumcised of heart", the "heart" metaphoric for desires or what I am trying to say by "mindset". If anything I was trying to take away the almost cutting sarcasm of the word "uncircumcised" when talking about that law. Again, I apologize for the poor choice of words but I hope you see my point ... maybe not. I also didn't think it would be offensive because of my belief that there are no current organized bodies of people to whom are required to live the law of Moses. Maybe we differ in that view but just take that into consideration with my original words. ... Didn't think there was anyone out there that would take offense any more than someone of that faith would get by reading the New Testament. Sorry.

Edited August 8, 2011 by Seminarysnoozer

[Justice]

Actually the case of animal sacrifice is a good example, I was wondering if there was an explanation (there are explanations of why animal sacrifice was performed) before the "I don't know" even if there is ultimately an "I don't know" at the end of the rainbow. I was wondering if circumcision was a similar circumstance or if it didn't pass go, did not collect $200 and went directly to "I dunno."

I haven't read the posts beyond this.

In the Garden of Eden, the Lord made Adam and Eve skins to cover themselves with. Pay careful attention to the wording:

Genesis 2: 25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

They ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Genesis 3: 7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

They could not cover themselves appropriately before the Lord, so...

Genesis 3: 21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

There is a lot of symbolism here, but if you ponder on this sequence, at least part of the significance of animal sacrifice will be made known to you.

Start with, what did the Lord have to do to get coats of skin so Adam and Eve could be covered? How does that tie in to what Christ's great and last sacrifice does for us?

Maybe there's an answer for circumcision down this road...

[Justice]

There may also be a more simple answer for cicumcision.

It is my feeling that the Israelites were told not to eat pork because of the health risk of undercooking it. Perhaps if not for undercooking, then at least for some other (unknown to them) health risk. It could be with water scarce and baths at a minimum, circumcision could have prevented a (unknown to them) health risk.

Possibilities, but no definite answers.

[volgadon]

There may also be a more simple answer for cicumcision.

It is my feeling that the Israelites were told not to eat pork because of the health risk of undercooking it. Perhaps if not for undercooking, then at least for some other (unknown to them) health risk. It could be with water scarce and baths at a minimum, circumcision could have prevented a (unknown to them) health risk.

Possibilities, but no definite answers.

The hygienic explanation fails to account for most of the evidence.

[volgadon]

Israel’s perception of God’s love and mercy become less clear as they are taught the meaning of law and justice.

Baloney.

[Vort]

Not having read more than a few of the responses in this thread, let me make a couple of observations that may or may not already have been brought up:

• Circumcision existed long before it was instituted in the law of Moses. Circumcision and other genital mutilation rites have apparently been practiced since prehistoric times. It would seem that God took an existing custom, likely one already practiced among Hebrews, and gave it new and special significance as the token of a covenant.

• As practiced anciently, circumcision was a comparatively minor removal of a small ring of skin. Were we today to look back at a circumcised Hebrew, most of us would respond, "What do you mean? He isn't circumcised." Michelangelo's statue of David, much-criticized for showing an uncircumcised Hebrew, is in fact historically correct: the David is circumcised, just not like it is done today.

  This newer, radical, more-damaging method of circumcision was instituted by the rabbis under the Maccabees. This was done because many Jews were "removing the marks of circumcision" in their sons by hanging weights from their foreskins to force them to regrow; Google "soft tissue expansion" for more information about this topic. This was done so that the Jews could more easily participate in Hellenic society; for example, so that their sons could attend the Greek gymnasia, which only allowed entrance to boys who were physically "perfect", i.e. didn't have missing body parts.

• Many people claim that circumcision protects the man from penile cancer. Technically, this is statistically true, but is an example of muddy thinking. Penile cancer is a form of skin carcinoma, and is extremely rare under any circumstance. Intact (uncircumcised) men who do not engage in regular hygiene such as weekly bathing do indeed stand a statistically higher risk of getting penile cancer as compared to circumcised men, though it's still a very small risk. Among men who bathe at least weekly, there is no statistical evidence that circumcision affects penile cancer rates at all. (Note that this applies to the radical, more damaging circumcision practiced today, not the token circumcision originally practiced among the Jews. Such token circumcision is not shown to have conferred even a small statistical benefit against penile cancer.)

• In the same vein (no pun intended), many people claim that circumcision protects a man from HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. Again, when basic hygiene is not observed, this is a true statement, but among those men who practice basic hygiene, circumcision confers no benefit protecting against disease. In effect, this is not unlike cutting off your child's arms so that his armpits won't stink. It works, but is it worth the physical cost? In societies with poor hygiene where genital washing seldom or never occurs, perhaps you could make the case that it is. In a modern society, I can't see any such argument being reasonable.

• Another frequent claim is that the sex partners of circumcised men are less likely to get sexually transmitted (or other) diseases than those who have sex with intact men. Like the above two points, there appears to be some truth to this among men who do not observe minimal hygiene, but among men who bathe regularly, there appears to be no statistical correlation.

• The sensory receptors in a man's penis are clustered primarily in two areas: The foreskin, especially the tip of the prepuce, and the frenulum on the underside of the penis right below the urethra. (Contrary to popular belief, the glans or "head" of the penis has relatively few sensory receptors, as any man can quickly verify for himself. Same with the shaft.)

  When a man's foreskin is removed with a typical "radical" (i.e. not token) circumcision, the tissue removed includes roughly half of the sensory receptors in a man's penis. The remaining receptors clustered around the frenulum and end of the urethra are usually sufficient to allow stimulation to orgasm, but a severe circumcision can remove much of this remaining tissue, leaving a man with little or no frenulum and in some cases making it very difficult or even impossible to ejaculate by regular sex.

  In short, the idea that circumcision does not affect a man's sensory perception or quality of sex is obviously false. A circumcised man may well be able to have a good and fulfilling sex life, but that does not imply that his quality of sex is equal to what it would have been had he remained intact.

• Infant circumcision is a medically unnecessary operation performed on a person who has no ability to consent or reject. If we were to cut off our children's noses or ears (because we thought them unattractive, or perhaps to make them look more like their noseless and earless fathers), most people would recognize that as unnecessary and even horrific mutilation. Few of us would accept the excuse that such procedures protect against nosebleeds or earlobe infections.

As one who foolishly consented to circumcising my first child and has bitterly regretted my decision since the moment I allowed it to be done, I beg prospective parents of sons to look deeply into this matter and consider leaving your baby's beautiful penis exactly as God created it. God has never required the extreme, mutilating form of circumcision that is practiced in the US today and worldwide by Jews and Muslims, and has not required it in any form at all for 2000 years. Please consider letting this particular form of genital mutilation die out with our generation and not be passed on to our descendants.

Edited August 17, 2011 by Vort
Corrected confusing wording

[pam]

As one who foolishly consented to circumcising my first child and has bitterly regretted my decision since the moment I allowed it to be done, I beg prospective parents of sons to look deeply into this matter and consider leaving your baby's beautiful penis exactly as God created it. God has never required the extreme, mutilating form of circumcision that is practiced in the US today and worldwide by Jews and Muslims, and has not required it in any form at all for 2000 years. Please consider letting this particular form of genital mutilation die out with our generation and not be passed on to our descendants.

And this is a personal decision made by parents and those that make this decision should not be condemned for doing so.

[Vort]

And this is a personal decision made by parents and those that make this decision should not be condemned for doing so.

If our society were in the habit of removing an infant's nose or ears, would you feel the same way?

Answer: Yes, you would. And I might perhaps even agree with you to some extent. My purpose is not to condemn parents for decisions they have made regarding their children, even if those decisions were unnecessary and injurious.

But the point is, if infant circumcision were not already widely accepted and practiced, you would be horrified at the very idea of circumcision and would never think to suggest that it was a parent's non-condemnatory "right" to submit his child to such genital mutilation. You will find a great many north African people, women as well as men, who insist that "female circumcision" is vital for a woman to be a productive member of society and a decent wife and mother. I doubt you find their arguments convincing or are particularly enthusiastic about defending their choice for their daughters as something to be accepted without condemnation.

[beefche]

And this is a personal decision made by parents and those that make this decision should not be condemned for doing so.

Doesn't sound like condemnation so much as pleadings, to me.

[pam]

Matter of interpretation of course.

[Vort]

Matter of interpretation of course.

What's a matter of interpretation?

[pam]

In how someone takes another post. I read it one way. Someone else reads it another way. And that's okay.

[Vort]

In how someone takes another post. I read it one way. Someone else reads it another way. And that's okay.

As one who foolishly consented to circumcising my first child and has bitterly regretted my decision since the moment I allowed it to be done, I beg prospective parents of sons to look deeply into this matter and consider leaving your baby's beautiful penis exactly as God created it. God has never required the extreme, mutilating form of circumcision that is practiced in the US today and worldwide by Jews and Muslims, and has not required it in any form at all for 2000 years. Please consider letting this particular form of genital mutilation die out with our generation and not be passed on to our descendants.

Not sure where you infer condemnation instead of pleading. Can you clarify?

[pam]

Perhaps condemnation is too strong of a word.

Remember this is only my interpretation as part of the conversation. In your pleading, it just makes me feel like I should feel a sense of guilt for allowing circumcision to be allowed to my own boys. While I'm pretty sure that's not how you meant it, it is how I read it.

That's why I said that it is a parents decision. I could have said it better by saying that a parent should not feel guilty in either decision.

[Suzie]

That's why I said that it is a parents decision. I could have said it better by saying that a parent should not feel guilty in either decision.

That's right. My boys are all circumcised and I don't feel guilty at all.

[Vort]

Perhaps condemnation is too strong of a word.

Remember this is only my interpretation as part of the conversation. In your pleading, it just makes me feel like I should feel a sense of guilt for allowing circumcision to be allowed to my own boys. While I'm pretty sure that's not how you meant it, it is how I read it.

That's why I said that it is a parents decision. I could have said it better by saying that a parent should not feel guilty in either decision.

I think I understand what you're saying. In some ways, I agree, but not the same way you are thinking.

I think that people who circumcised their sons should feel awful about it. I certainly do. If we don't feel awful about mutilating our son's genitals, we will have no incentive to stop the barbaric practice. In this sense, it is no different from feeling awful about any other bad, stupid, unwise, or sinful thing we did in the past, before we knew that it was bad, stupid, unwise, or sinful. We may have done it in the innocency of our heart, and there may be no moral stain attached to the action at this juncture, but it's still a very good thing for us to feel bitter regret over having hurt our children, however well-intentioned or unwitting our actions.

That said, I was not condemning those who have circumcised their sons. I do condemn myself, because I had some notion that circumcision was not a good thing but I allowed myself to be talked into it in order to avoid an uncomfortable situation and preserve harmonious feelings. In other words, I betrayed my son and allowed his penis to be permanently mutilated because I was too **** cowardly to stand up for what I sensed might have been right and say "You will cut my son's penis over my cold, dead body," instead taking the easy, non-confrontational route, salving my conscience by telling myself that if it was good enough for Jesus, it was good enough for my baby. With that sort of idiocy running through my head, thank God I didn't nail him to a cross afterward.

If you, too, circumcised your son over your private misgivings in order to satisfy a spouse or other family pressures, I invite you to join me in our well-deserved self-condemnation. Otherwise, I pass no judgment on others.

But circumcision is what it is: Genital mutilation. That fact should never be sugar-coated.

[pam]

I respect your position Vort. However, I feel absolutely no guilt in the decision I made.

[Suzie]

I think that people who circumcised their sons should feel awful about it. I certainly do. If we don't feel awful about mutilating our son's genitals, we will have no incentive to stop the barbaric practice. In this sense, it is no different from feeling awful about any other bad, stupid, unwise, or sinful thing we did in the past, before we knew that it was bad, stupid, unwise, or sinful. We may have done it in the innocency of our heart, and there may be no moral stain attached to the action at this juncture, but it's still a very good thing for us to feel bitter regret over having hurt our children, however well-intentioned or unwitting our actions.

I fully respect your view but I have a problem accepting the way it is worded. Really, in your well deserved opinion circumcision is a barbaric practice. A lot of people don't share your thoughts (it doesn't make them right or you right).

Just because you felt awful about your experience with the circumcision of your son doesn't mean other parents should feel the same way. Maybe that's what you hope? If you do, I understand and respect that but saying they should feel awful... it seems to accept the premise that what they did was wrong in the first place and it's really a matter of personal opinion.

[Vort]

I respect your position Vort. However, I feel absolutely no guilt in the decision I made.

As long as you believe that circumcision is a good thing, or at least that there is nothing wrong with having your infant son circumcised, I would not expect you to feel any guilt.

Remember that the circumcision you had performed on your sons will affect them for the rest of their lives, and will likely lead to circumcision on your grandsons, which will in turn affect them for the rest of their lives, and so on. This is fine, so long as circumcision is a good (or at least acceptable) procedure. But if I am right and circumcision is barbaric, then it is to the great advantage of your descendants, and therefore to you, to find this out.

For that reason, I encourage you to study this issue out. There is a great deal of good medical material available on the internet (though you will also find a large number of biased sites, a surprising majority of which are pro-circumcision, mostly by those with sexual fetishes). Don't just devote three or four hours to this. Really take time to study out all the ramifications of this issue and to get to know what is involved in making an informed decision. Take an hour or two a day for a month or so and really dive into it.

At worst, you will remain of the same opinion and feel you have "wasted" that time, but at least you will be well-informed and can specify exactly why you feel the way you feel. And, just maybe, you will change your mind on the subject, decide that routine infant circumcision really is a barbaric abomination, alert your children to the issue and to your own change in opinion, and thus catalyze a change that will affect your descendants for all succeeding generations. So you really have nothing much to lose by researching the issue, and a whole lot to gain.

[Vort]

but saying they should feel awful... it seems to accept the premise that what they did was wrong in the first place and it's really a matter of personal opinion.

No, I don't believe it's simply a matter of personal opinion whether cutting off the end of your son's penis is good or bad, like whether pistachio ice cream is better or worse than cherry. Permanently altering and reshaping your infant son's healthy genitals must have some importance beyond mere personal opinion, and there must be some way of determining whether it is a good thing or not.

If it were cutting off any other living body part, even something as inconsequential as earlobes, I have to believe that you would see a moral element of some sort to the surgery. Surely cutting off the end of an infant boy's penis is of at least as much moral and ethical moment as removing his earlobes.

[Suzie]

Vort, don't take it wrong but I don't feel as passionate as you seem to be about the medical procedure of circumcision so I am not sure if I will spends hours researching about it however, I appreciate your thoughts and opinions.

[Vort]

Vort, don't take it wrong but I don't feel as passionate as you seem to be about the medical procedure of circumcision so I am not sure if I will spends hours researching about it however, I appreciate your thoughts and opinions.

Well, I doubt I can convince you to take it more seriously, but I wish you would. Remember that every time your son makes love to his wife, your decision will directly and profoundly impact the moment, and will probably lead to a continuation of the practice through your male progeny. As I said before, this is fine, so long as circumcision is a good or at least acceptable practice. But if it is not, it has deep consequences for your posterity.

Pretend it were "female circumcision" under discussion (the "less radical" kind that involves only the removal of the clitoral hood and some of the clitoris, rather than excising the entire clitoral and labial area) instead of the male equivalent. I expect you would feel a great deal more passion about the topic. I'm sure you believe your sons and grandsons deserve the same love, protection, and consideration as your daughters and granddaughters. Therefore, upon further reflection, this issue may perhaps inspire more passion in you than you are currently feeling.