CIRCUMCISION–DISCONTINUED AND DISAPPROVED
Jesus said, “If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day?” (John 7: 23)
Mormon said, “Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me.” (Moroni 8: 8 )
The Lord said, “Wherefore, for this cause the apostle wrote unto the church, giving unto them a commandment, not of the Lord, but of himself, that a believer should not be united to an unbeliever; except the law of Moses should be done away among them, that their children might remain without circumcision; and that the tradition might be done away, which saith that little children are unholy; for it was had among the Jews; but little children are holy, being sanctified through the atonement of Jesus Christ; and this is what the scriptures mean.” (D&C 74: 5-7)
If the Lord, when he was here on earth, made a circumcised man every whit whole, if the Lord told his prophet Mormon that the law of circumcision was done away in him, and if the Lord’s apostle thought that children ought to remain without circumcision, why is this archaic practice still had among LDS? It was meant to end with the first appearance of Christ, yet it continues on among his people. Does that not strike you as strange?
There are laws against female genital mutilation, but male genital mutilation is allowed. Does the fact that it is legal to mutilate a boy’s genitals excuse the LDS in performing it? Does legality equate to justification? Why haven’t church leaders spoken to the people on this topic? Are they not aware of what circumcision does to a man’s (and a woman’s) sexual experience? Are you not aware of it? Follow the links below and inform yourself:
SexAsNatureIntendedIt.com Circumstitions.com MothersAgainstCirc.org nocirc.org Circumcision.org cirp.org
Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist
193 Comments
LDS Anarchy 
Circumcision reduces the transmission of Syphallis, as does long hair. There was a Turn of the Century Epidemic–
9 million victims in the US, including women and children.
Mormons tended to become involved in any and all progressive movements in the late 19th Century, particularly
in the area of Women’s Rights, including the right of women
to marry the man of their choice, as they perceived Polygamy.
While I agree that circumcision is a barbaric procedure for which there is no religious imperative (at least for Mormons), appealing to LDS leaders to discourage the practice because it decreases a man’s sexual pleasure is probably the wrong tack to take with that crowd.
It seems that the reason it has persisted has more to do with cultural norms than anything. I served my mission in England, where a discussion once broke out between British and American missionaries. The americans all thought it was crazy that the Brits hadn’t been “cut.” The Brits, likewise, couldn’t believe that the practice still continued in a “civilized” country.
Circumcision’s persistence seems to be more of a societal norm than anything. Most kids born these days had fathers who were circumcised. Many parents don’t want their boys to “look different” than their fathers. Circumcision also was encouraged throughout the 60s, 70s, and 80s because of the myth that it was easier to maintain hygiene.
But Kathleen is correct that it does reduce the transmission of some disease. In a statistics class, we recently analyzed some data the suggests a strong correlation between circumcision and low HIV rates in Africa. Some statisticians have gone as far to suggest that we could wipe HIV in Africa out completely if every African male were circumcised.
It doesn’t seem to be (to me) as black and white an issue is it might initially appear.
I need to clarify that circumcision decreases both a man’s and a woman’s sexual experience. I’ll change the above post to reflect this. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
Circumcision is mutilation. Period. We start with a whole organ and then we amputate a portion of it to change its appearance and function. (And yes, the function changes.) There are many less important cultural things that leaders comment on, such as tattoos and earrings. These are cultural issues, but none of them change function. A person with a tattoo or ear piercing can still have a functional ear and functioning skin, with no reduction in that function. Not so with circumcision. The entire function of the organ is changed and made less than what it was designed by God to be, to the detriment of both man and woman. Adults can make that decision themselves, when they are older, and that’s fine, as it is their body and they are adults. But infant children are innocent and receive this mutiliation without their consent, denying them the full sexual experience that is their birth right. Surely, this is a topic worthy of Church leaders’ attention, more so than tattoos and earrings. Female genital mutilation is denouced the world over, yet boys routinely go under the knife in our civilized country. The irony is beyond belief. No one has the right to amputate an infant’s finger, why should they have the right to amputate a portion of that most delicate and important member?
As for reducing transmission of diseases, there are other, less barbaric ways of reducing diseases. I would bet that due to the tremendous reduction in pleasure that circumcised men feel, the frequency of sex is less than those who feel the full pleasure and that that is one of the reasons why reduction of sexual diseases results. Another reason would be cleanliness. Neverthess, it is as easy to clean an intact organ as it is to clean a mutilated one. If there are lots of “armpit disease” due to people not lifting their arms and cleaning their pits, do we recommend that the arm be amputated so that the pit is more easily cleaned, thus resulting in a reduction in “arm pit disease?”
When I had my son five years ago (before I was LDS) we were asked (by the doctor) if we were going to have him circumcised. I asked a billion questions and the end result was the doctor telling me it was indeed the best thing to do (cleanliness etc) and also my husband is so HE wanted him to be. So I reluctantly agreed. I was concerned about my new little boy and I did not want him to suffer any unnecessary pain! When the doctor brought him back I was devastated. I cried and I felt so horrible and guilty for doing this to him. Mutilated is exactly the word I used.
My husband and I want to have one more child, if it is a boy I DO NOT want to have him circumcised. But I don’t know how to convence my husband of this. It would be so much easier if the church would make a satement condemning the practice! Do you think this will ever happen?
I don’t think the current church leadership will ever speak out about circumcision, condemning it. First of all, I believe that the scriptures are sufficiently clear that circumcision is to be done away, including the verse where Jesus un-circumcises a Jew. Second, the modern church has aligned itself with allopathic medicine, as there are many LDS medical doctors who either are in leadership positions or who have influenced the leadership and who have influenced the membership. This is the opposite of the church in the days of Joseph Smith, who turned to herbs when there was not enough faith to be healed (D&C 42: 43), not to the “poison doctors.” As a result of this reliance upon allopathic medical doctors, what these same doctors say about an organ is what is believed by the leadership. The doctors don’t see that the foreskin and frenulum serve any useful purpose, so, to them, it is okay to lop it off. Of course, many of these same doctors who have started this general practice of circumcision, beginning, I believe, around the turn of the last century, were Jewish and thus, they believed in circumcision. So, don’t hold your breath while you wait for the GAs to address this topic.
The only way a circumcised man can know what he is missing is to have the organ regenerated, which presently is not possible. The only way an intact man can know what a circumcised man is missing is to become circumcised after having experienced sex. This has happened and these adult, intact men who have become circumcised have spoken out of the tremendous reduction in pleasure, but no one is listening. As for women, the only way a woman can know of the reduction in pleasure to her experience caused by circumcision is to experience two men, one circumcised and one intact, which is off limits to chaste, LDS women. Besides, this is difficult for American women as many American men are circumcised, so finding an intact one is difficult. Besides, no woman wants to ask a man, “Are you circumcised or intact?” On the other hand, those women who do get the opportunity to compare circumcised sexual relations to intact sexual relations often think that the intact man’s technique is what is better, or he is more loving, etc., and don’t make the connection that the state of the organ dictates a man’s technique. In other words, they don’t realize that it is the intactness or circumcision-ness of the organ that determines the level of pleasure a woman feels and not the rest of the man. This is not common knowledge, but can be found out if one searches it out.
Finally, as circumcision is a painful subject to men, they don’t want to talk about it. No man wants to believe he is less than what he could have been due to his parent’s decision. So, I don’t see the general populace making any changes to this custom. However, once we become LDS, we should be a more enlightened people than the masses, having the gift of the Holy Ghost to manifest the truth of all things to us, so, we, of all people, ought to see through the errors and discern the truths regarding circumcision, even without the GA’s commenting on it.
I’m going to email this to my husband!
Thanks steff
I am encouraged to hear that there are other LDS people in the world who disagree with circumcision. I had never given it a moments thought until my husband and I found out we were going to have a baby boy. We did some reading and my wonderful midwife gave me very unbiased information. We were fence sitters until we saw a picture of a baby boy being circumcised – then the decision was easy. The scriptures are against it and it IS mutilation! We decided against it and stood up for our decision to our families. We hope that more men will be willing to break the cycle, I’m sure glad my husband was.
You have no idea what mormons believe . I am one and what you say about the church is totally weird
Circumcision has also been found to reduce the risk of contracting HIV by 60%. Many adult men in Africa and South-East Asia are getting circumcised as adults. It seems that the risk of disease transmission is the major reason that it should be continued.
Steve, adult men can make that decision for themselves. That is what adulthood is all about, making decisions for yourself by yourself. The problem is that infant children are having this forced upon them. They are too young to even be able to consent to it, as they don’t know the language of the people mutilating them, being but babies. All they can do is cry to express their disagreement. They aren’t physically strong enough to stop the procedure or able to run or even crawl away. They are mutilated at the very weakest point in their existence, right after birth. The chances are high that if they were to grow up without circumcision and become adults, and then be presented with all the facts of circumcision, including information on the huge reduction in sexual pleasure, that very few men would undergo the procedure. If parents attempted to force circumcision on their adult children, the adult children would rightly see it as an assault and would fight or flee to put a stop to the procedure. So, such a procedure should only be done with consent of the individual, otherwise they may feel victimized when they are older and discover the life-long physical, emotional and psychological effects the procedure has had on their sex life.
Great post!
Here’s a good pamphlet…
Mormonism and Circumcision
Click to access Mormonism_and_Circumcision.pdf
See also:
http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/LDS/
Jen
http://www.intactivist.org/
Circumcision has not been proven to reduce HIV. The person who did the last study mentioned in the media was actually a pro-circumcision activist.
I, too, do not believe in this horrible act. Those boys can go do whatever they want to themselves when they’re older. You cannot grow back what they chopped off! If they want it cut later, fine, but I will NOT hurt my beautiful baby boy in the worst way possible. He can decide to do so when he gets older, but I guarantee he wont. I don’t think I ever knew a guy that would do that to himself. That would be like choping off your nipple, but ten times worse. Why would you do that to an innocent child?
No child of mine will suffer unneeded harm and pain on my hands. NO CHILDRENS BLOOD WILL BE ON MY HANDS!!!!
My mother’s husband chose to be circumcised very late in life. I didn’t ask him why he chose to do it, though. We were talking about the World Health Organization’s recommendation to Africans to undergo circumcision in order to reduce transmission rates of HIV, and I was speculating that it must be quite a healing process. That was when he told me that he’d opted for a circumcision in his 30’s or something, and that the healing only took a few weeks, and that it wasn’t that bad.
I’m circumcised, and I’m not happy about it. My brother is trying to stretch out his foreskin with all kinds of tortorous devices, because he’s not happy about his circumcision either. I often wonder what it would be like to have sex or masturbate with foreskin. I feel like I’m missing out. I’m not angry at my parents; they thought they were doing what was best for me.
I like the fact that you mentioned that just because it’s tradition, and just because it’s legal, doesn’t make it right. It seems like a lot of people are afflicted with the inability to do what is right, regardless of law or tradition. Take slavery, witch hunting, or tax collecting, for example.
John 7:23 is actually an excellent example of Jesus making the point that just because something is law, doesn’t mean it’s right. He points out that the jews want to persecute him for healing a crippled man on the sabbath (what could be more God-like, right?), yet they’re not opposed to performing circumcisions on the sabbath. One complies with the letter of the law, the other complies with the spirit of the law.
People need to learn to discard law (the letter of the law) & traditions, and learn to make decisions based on what is right.
Agreed. Not on Scriptural grounds, but on philosophical ones. The HIV “issue” is a farce…. it might reduce the rate of transmission of HIV once one partner has it, but if you’re following the law of chastity or using condoms, that reduces your risk a whole lot more. I can’t imagine justifying circumcising a boy by saying, “Well, if he decides to sleep with a woman who has HIV, this will lessen his chances of catching it.” Yikes. And can you imagine the tangled web of parenting decisions you’d have to make using this kind of logic?
My husband and I circ’ed our first two sons and left the third intact. That was my idea, not his, although he grudgingly cooperated and now doesn’t care one way or another. I am very glad I had the guts to let the third boy be “different” from his brothers. I won’t suggest that one decision is superior to the other, but that we made different decisions based on different information.
I will acknowledge, though, that after leaving a baby intact and getting used to the idea that it’s normal and natural, the practice strikes me as barbaric now. If a doctor suggested he slice off my newborn son’s nipples real quick because he doesn’t need them and he’s too young to really feel pain anyway, I’d hardly consider that a good idea…. so what ever made me think it was any less freakish to remove part of his penis?!
Incidentally, my son is now two years old and has never had a urinary tract infection, which was the big scary warning we *did* get about leaving him intact. In retrospect it’s such a fool’s argument– like, perhaps we should remove the appendix at birth as well, or put him under anaesthetic and pop in some ear tubes when he’s three days old in case he’s prone to ear infections. What sold me against it after two sons was asking my father-in-law, who was intact, why he’d chosen to have his sons circ’ed. He said, “Nobody asked me. They just did it in the hospital.” And why did my husband want it done to the boys? So they’d look like Daddy. What a sham.
MormonMom,
Your family is like my family, my older brother and I are snipped, our little brother is intact (he was born in Australia where circumcision isn’t practiced).
I didn’t mean to justify circumcision with the HIV stuff, but those studies are interesting, to say the least. The Mosaic laws are outward ordinances that were imposed because of sin. Certainly in a day without rubber condoms and without a clinical understanding of disease (or so we assume), there is something genius, I suppose, about the practice of circumcision. And as the laws of Moses were imposed because of sin, it’s kinda cool that circumcision helped to protect against what can result from the sins of fornication and sexual promiscuity.
When our only son was born we did some research and opted against circumcision. My sister-in-law with 5 boys told me we were weird. My parents had all 5 boys in my family circumcised. When my father found out we didn’t circumcise my son he told me he thought that was good, that it was as God intended. I wish he had thought of that when I was born, but back then it was unheard of not to circumcise. I remember seeing the only uncircumcised kid in my junior high gym class. I thought there was something physically wrong with him. Little did I know …
The Moses’ law died in Christ. This is so clear like the water. There is no need for circumcision. If God is perfect and he created us similar to him, so, there is nothing wrong with the men. I am circumcised and live in a country where 99% are intact. Imagine!!!
Glad i found this site, ive been a member for a year now and im uncut and glad to be too, ive been with my girlfriend or almost 5 years now she is LDS as well she does not know that im uncut and kind of afraid to tell her, just today we talked about kids and she said that if we have boys she wants them to be cut, i dont agree with that and i know that is what i need to tell her, i have never had any issues with being uncut all i have to say is keep yourself clean but truly how hard could that be, its so sad for me to hear people say they cut to be clean well that just shows how lazy and unclean your are. but i have to tell you one thing uncut men have tons more feeling then cut men since the head of the penis is always covered, but yeah anyways. DONT CIRCUMCISE WHAT FOR!!! WE ARE CREATED IN WHOLE AND THAT IS HOW WE SHOULD STAY.
May I offer an interesting perception of circumsims and it’s possible alien connections.
It’s going to get real wierd, but in the end all will be needed to explore the possible roots of this tradition.
The Lost Books Of Enki, translated by Zecharia Sitchin give an account of the Nephilum and thier botanical lab known as the Edin. It is recorded that a worker species was being created using the earths beings that were similar to the Nephilium or snake totem race. Using different trials and stages finally a way was devised to create an offspring that could breed its self…so man created in their image was put out and told to take care of the place. Another tweeking occurred where it is recorded that a piece of Nephilum marrow was put into the ribs of the Adamu and eve character. After they bred for a while then a worker class began to be harvested to work the mines for the Nephilum.
If you cross an Donkey With a Horse you get a mule. Mules have long ears like a donkey, legs like a horse, but cannot reproduce. And to circumcise a donkey would entail cutting off…never mind.
Genetics, we are really no different than the other creations around us.
How do you think all the skin colors came to be…regional water? I grew up on a ranch and have artifically inseminated cows. I’ve used Charlet semen in a Holstein Heifer to ensure a smaller calf and better milk from the mother. That’s how breding animals works and that’s how human, dogs, and animals have all become mutts of color, race, and creed.
So the Nephilim had no foreskin. Some of the experiments did include artificial insemination, different combinations, and even mixed ratios of donors were used…same as cattle ranching.. The first baby that was carried by a Nephilum female was born with the foreskin. She was royalty and would not have skin on the head of a Nephilum princes penis. And some of these new creations had skins and some didn’t and
And kinda like in the Dr. Suess story of the sneetches with stars on their bellies and those without… things got into a really big mess. To this day the DNA of the Queen and so-Called royalty is their claimed birthright to nations and empires containing billions of people forced to pay them taxes. These royal blood traces back to the Egyptians and the Nephilum. The worldwide governments, religions tweeked, and media coverage so it is written. Then it is done.
Ironically using the Book Of Mormon, Pearle of Great Price, The Doctrine and Covenants, The Nemenhah, the Enki books, some old Jewish text, and Hopi records I could in a court of law possibly prove this stuff above… Nephi lum Nephi te, But
None of these books are considered as Facts or History really. Because they have never been approved or authorized as such. It’s not in the Encylopedia BRITTAN-ica, right?
I believe the book of Mormon to come from God but the Federal Supreme Court says it’s Fiction.
It is legally not considered history in the confines surrounding us today as Factual or Truthful.
This is year number 232 of the rein of the judges of the Federal District of Columbia.
The so-called accepted history says that Columbus found some savages hear. Those so-called royal families that Columbus was working for Still believe to own what he supposedly found and conquered…so they say. What records we do have show Columbus and others slaughtered millions using poison and guns to erase indiginous cultures and histories and set up eventually for real-ity and complete control. Columbia pictures has made millions selling secrets of the Maya, Egyptians, and end of the world events, all just part of the man behind the curtain. Connected with what the District of Columbia’s US Calvery division and the Mormon Battalion did to the Native Americans still left.
There are few mysteries only cunningly suppressed and twisted histories.
The ancient masonic ally framed Constitution we were hypnotized into believing was our only possible salvation-gives the supreme court decision between fact and fiction.
The 232 year reigning supreme court judges are appointed by the president of the Federal District of Columbia.
All Presidents including Obama have been of royal blood lines. They are elected by the so-called electoral college not the peoples popular vote…for fun. So says the Constitution.
According to the constitution the Electors may not hold any public office like senator, Governor(utah 2004 hit!!!), or even mayor.
Do you know who the last Electors were???
D & C 98 says I only have to accept the government and uphold the constitution if it supports freedom.
I have not the freedom to cross state lines with the plant I believe holds healing for my mother and to be the very fabled tree of life.
Are all medical treatments legal for your mother in need. Where is you line.
PEace, love, and all that $#@!…Christian
What will you allow them to cut off next?
just a thought, when we become resurrected, our bodies will be perfect and not a hair will be lost nor a limb ect…. so that must mean we get our forskin back.
Yep.
I too think that this practice should be abandoned. I do wonder, however, if male circumcision was mutilation when God commanded Abraham to do it as a token of the covenant or did it only become such when it was no longer required?
I have heard several theories on the original practice of circumcision (the one traced to Abraham). One was that it was a cut that healed, leaving a mark (scar), but in which nothing was removed, in other words, that the organ was still intact. The practice over time then changed to actually remove part of the organ. Another theory I’ve heard was that the ancient practice was not a literal cut, but a ritualistic cut, meaning that the rite used a knife or sharp instrument and there were gestures of a cutting, but that the organ was not literally cut. Again, over time, the rite changed to the point that the organ actually was cut, etc. I don’t know whether either of these theories has a basis in fact. My concern is with the current practice.
I saw this as a result of looking at recent comments and thought I would throw a few thoughts out.
Setting aside for a moment my belief that there are records that the world has lost, the oldest recorded religions we have were primarily goddess-worshiping societies. A major component of goddess-worship was sacrificing the first-born, especially males (“passing children through fire” is what the Bible often calls it). This is a pretty heavy requirement, one which parents probably got tired of. So this requirement was lightened to involve merely castrating first-born males and forcing them to serve as prostitutes in temples. This also seems to have become seen as pretty demanding. So full castration was watered-down to only cutting off the fore-skin (circumcision). I don’t have anything proving how the practice of circumcision came to be widely practiced today, but I suspect it has to do with our being in a Babylonian society (Babylon was a Goddess, remember), and certainly nothing to do with the true Gospel, as LDSA pointed out in the original post.
Exactly what Abraham practiced and why he was commanded of the Lord to practice it I’m not claiming to understand, and I will leave it as something between the Lord and Abraham.
Well, I have circ regret. DH and I felt we should circ for health issues. He worked in nursing homes and saw some intact patients get infections.
But now that my eyes are open and I see how wrong it is I wish it would become illegal here in the US. I really wish there was a way to protect our future baby boys.
hmmmmm…. i always knew that circumcision was renounced in the scriptures but i never knew the difference between a cut person and a whole person. im 16 and well, today i found that out… i hate being forced to be a mormon even more now… i can understand the advantages of it, but the mormons are such hypocrites. AND DOING IT AT BIRTH!!!! gives me no damn choice in the matter. (honestly i probably would have opted in, but still). ATTENTION MORMONS: THE LAW OF MOSES HAS BEEN RENOUNCED!!!! YOU DO NOT HAVE TO DO THIS STUFF ANYMORE!!
-pyromaniac
Circumcisson was a part of the law of Moses, they were to remain a seperate people before and after they were to go into the promised land. because there were so many different tribes of mixed lineages in the regions they were given this practice of circumcission and the practice of inspecting the groom before the marriage consumation was to take place, if the groom was not circumcised then he was considered unclean and the marriage was to be called off. Later this practice was adopted by the Egyptians as they would fain lay claim to the priesthood and all of its rites, from them it continued to spread through out the rest of the known world. The Isrealites were always to have a seer among them as long as they were a righteous people and if the re were any question of ones lineage they were to ask the seer, see Ezra chap 62: 1-2 This is the reason that Peter and Paul had such a contentious debate on the subject. Peter was concerned that certain bloodlines would contaminate the lineages even tho he was the one that received the revelation to take the gospel to the gentiles it was Paul that became known as the prophet to the gentiles, Paul was adamit to go by the spirit and not the law of Moses. As it turned out they were both correct in their assertions but they never did forgive one another in their hearts, as the Lord said.
I thought it necessary to clarify that gentiles and Israelites could intermarry as long as the gentiles were pure gentile. It was still fround upon at that time because it would change their geneaologys this is why Paul chastised the Jews for their vain geneaologys. Paul was of the opinion and rightly so that if the gentiles could receive the gospel that intermarriage wth the Israelites was acceptable. And also Peters fears were realized in that the Israelites or Jews also intermarried with certain cannanite tribes namely with a northen African people known to day in Ethiopa. I do not know if this was a result of the gospel being taken to the gentiles or not most likely it wasn’t. Tihis never was an Priesthood issue as the Jews had at this time lost all priesthood authority and the Jews that became Christians had the seership as to keep the lineage pure. Also the most the Ephraim lineage had left the scene approx 700-800 years previous and had been hid wth Christ in God D&C 86 8-10.
Any how I left out that the Ephraim lineage is the most profoundly covenant lineage of all. There is absolutely no reason for circumcision today as it had been completely corrupted over a thousand years ago! the Ephraim lineage had been hidden since the Ten lost tribes left the Land of Israel, Due to the gospel net and the Epraim lineage coming out of the wilderness with the restoration of the church and the fulness of the gospel all priesthood blessings are declared to come from the house of Ephraim! Even tho the restored church is refered to as the gentiles in the book of Mormon this is due to the fact that the early church members all came from predominatly gentile nations. The ten toes of Nebecheizers dream were the remnants of Rome, the nations of Europe. Had they came from the Holy Land and had always been a seperate people they undoubtedly would have been given another title. Any how the church and the priesthood was always expected to declare the lineages via seership. Of which no one attempts to do today since the supposed revelation to give the priesthood to every worthy male. If we don’t have that ability any more then Peter’s fears and Paul’s fears have both been realized now you know why the twelve apostles of the Lamb shall judge all things pertaining to the House of Israel.
The Israelites were given many types and shadows, circumcisson was one of many. And it should be a easy thing to understand. However by the time that Christ came upon the scene things were about to change ;because He talked of being (pure) circumcised in heart. The very fact that Christ used circumcisson in a parable gives it credibility. And Christ also knew that the times of the gentiles was about to start. Because of Christs atonement children were no longer to be thought of as victims of original sin.And therefore that practice was to have nothing to do with original sin, as many thought it was. Never the less there are many things in the old testament that are still binding upon men today, such as the ten commandments. Circumcisson promotes a physical cleanliness that helps resist certain diseases (std) and infections, but I don’t see how a righteous practice could be intended to protect a man of an immoral act.So back to the types and shadows reason; The pain of cicumcisson should send a message that to missuse that part of male body in a unchase way would lead to other painfull experiences, (some became eunechs for the kingdom of God) also that it was a way of seperating the pure seed of Isreal from the seed of the rest of the world in other words if the pure seed came from a phallus that looked one way then it might suggest that a different seed may come from a different phallus.As I mentioned before the pre-marriage inspection to detect an imposter (non Israelite). Peter wanted the gentiles to submit to circumcisson Paul thought it too much of a burden to bear and saw no reason for it. Peter new that for generations the gentiles were in the habit of mixing their seed with the cannanites and thought the message of circumcisson was needed that they might understand the importanace of resisting intermarriage with the cannanites. Paul understood the necessity of going by the spirit after all that is why the Lord called him “a confessed killer of Christians” to the ministry. So you might say that circumcisson is an unresolved issue to this day! Paul did understand that one of the responsibilities of seership was to determine ones lineage, and was not concerned. in figure 7 of the facsimilies of Abraham the serpent is offering Adam the forbidden fruit represented by the all seeing eye (your eyes should be opened). under the serpent is the symbol of a tree (tree of life ). The serpent has not been cursed as of yet and so has limbs, Adam’s left arm is to the square and compass, Adam has an erection representing the necessity of the fall of man and bringing forth children. Behind Adam is Eve goading the bull to action with a yod (the yod representing the seed of man) the bull representing fertility and posterity Also Joseph who was sold into Egypt and became the king or pharoah of egypt as represented by the crown on the head of the bull.The four figures to the right represent four different races of men the three figures to the right of the races of men represent the three that were to remain the giants were to be removed from off the earth. King David made sure of that! The top figure is an ecliptic with a sign attached to represent an arc, or in other words the covenant lineage arc-ed from a celestial kingdom to this earth, this should be of interest to those who have read Brigham young’s discourse on Adam as God. Also the head of Adam is in the form of a dove showing that Adam should be lead by the Holy Ghost, the seat of Adam representing the throne of God, the wings on his back with three prongs representing the three degrees of glory. the yoke on the bull representing the yoke of Christ, Joseph being a type and shadow of Christ to the house of Israel. The other animals reresented by a jackal and a dog enough said?I do not know nor do I care who presented the explanations on the opposite page I will say however it wasn’t the Prophet Joseph Smith. I invite the BYU professors to do a better job of revealing the facsimilie than I have , if they should try I will reveal the rest of the facsimlie, this should be enltghtening. Any how for now this should be sufficient to condemn those professors of religion. I would prefer that Thomas Monson give it a shot if he dare and if not then concede the scepter of power is out of his hands.
Brandon,
Your comments on the Egyptian facsimiles is the biggest load of claptrap I’ve ever read. Where did you get the notion that Egyptians believed any of this? This is an Egyptian document, right? You challenge BYU professors, but my 10-year-old can do a better job than you’ve done. Anybody can hazard a boatload of speculative guesses, as you’ve done. But, none of it conforms to the symbolic system of the prophets or the Egyptians. It’s your invention, pure and simple, with no basis in reality. Give me a break!
Dear anthonyelarson{ I am glad to get a response from some one even if it is just you. The history of this interpretation goes back to a book called Dry Bones written and published by my good friend one Alex Joseph. The first one hundred copies were bought by the LDS church with a statement by Hugh Nibley” that Mr. Alex Joseph has certainly done his home work”, Since that time egyptologist have slowly come around to the same conclussions to help you out I suggest that you google the “backyard Professor ” and wach his presentation of on the facscimilies, his research ia based on the most current findings of Egyptologist, and by the way the “backyard professor “is a member in good standiing of the LDS church! I wish I could take credit for all of these findings but I simply cannot. If the church had done a better job of defending the prophet Joseph Smith when its own BYU egyptologist, after gaining a portion of the manuscripts in 1968 declared that Joseph Smith fabricated “The Pearl of Great Price ” Tthen people like Alex Joseph would not have to defend him. Any how I have had the privledge researching these things for many years since and am in the position of taking it to a new level however as I also said I would first like to see the church leaders try first. It is quite clear that they have no intentions to do so, after all how would it look to have the same findings of Alex Joseph an excommunicated plygamous with some twenty six wives!! Any how I am disappointed in your attitude I would think that most people of the LDS persuasion would be interested in learning the truth, but every one can learn from a bad attitde so if you like bring it on, if you can handle the fire. Sincerely Brand Nu
Lots of Mormons are no longer circumcising boys my wife and I prayed about it and were specifically told DO NOT!
Your not understanding your scriptures….It is not circumcision that is “Done Away” it is “the Law of Circumcision” (Law of the Israelites not of God) that is done away…….Circumcision is an “Everlasting” Token of the Covenant.
Jack the Mormon, (Daniel)
Dear Mormon to the core, if you recieve “Do Not” Then you put before the Lord a question which require a yes or no, givng no thought save it were to ask….which is sloughthfullness in the use of agency, where in you did not use it…….You must study the thing out in your mind then MAKE a DECISION, then place your decision befor the Lord using that agency…..The Lord CANNOT answer a question in which you did not use that agency……..your answer was deception……Snip Snip…..
[…] But I had thought, surely, that the practice would be out for Mormons. Yet, other bloggers ask: Why do LDS still circumcise? […]
Being circumcised does not decease sexual pleasure (see proven Medical link below) but I think why the Mormon church doesn’t come out and say to circumcise or not is because they leave it up to the parents to choose what is best for their family. Isn’t that what all loving parents do, seek then do what is best? The second link is the history behind circumcisions from the Old Testament and what the Book of Mormon says too. There are so many pro and cons to both decisions, that it should be a family choice. But it doesn’t hurt to read other people view and thoughts on both subjects.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/circumcision/PR00040
and
Click to access LDSCircumcision.pdf
“Appeal to Religion” is considered a logical fallacy. My opinion is that the scriptures that say that babies are born whole and that the whole do not need medicine are righteous. That is in agreement with the arguments based on medical ethics presented by another Holy Scripture, “Doctors Opposed to Circumcision Genital Integrity Policy Statement”.
Whether you say that “Mother Nature” or “God” “designed” or “caused to evolve” the penis with a perfect natural covering, a built in “garment”… a rose is but a rose.
To really understand the old testament. read Glick’s book “Marked in Your Flesh” a history of Judaic circumcision 600 pages. interesting read “that the Lord’s covenant and his two definitive promises (prodigious reproduction success and a lavish land grant (all of Canaanite land) appears first in Genesis 15, an earlier J text but with one crucial difference, there is no mention of circumcision.” “To seal this covenant the only requirement is that Abram offer several sacrificial animals- a heifer, goat, ram, dove, and one other bird. Here we find no mention of circumcision, no change of name, no mention of Isaac or Ishmael.” “Like a number of their neighbors, the ancient Israelites had practiced circumcision, but not as a mandatory rite and probable seldom on infants; nor did they associate it with the idea of covenant.”
It was the Judean Priests who wrote Genesis 17 (P text) 13 centuries after Abraham’s putative lifetime that called for male circumcision of infants. A initiation rite not so much for the infant but of the father who must circumcise his son himself for he is cognizant of the event whereas the infant is not. These type of circ.s were the cutting off the acroposthion (the part that hangs past the glans). No damage of tearing the foreskin from the glans and no amputating the part covering the glans. The radical circ. like we do happens centuries later. The Torah says not to mark the body, this jives with the earliest Judea.
It’s not just skin. It is skin and dartos muscle on the outside and inside it’s mucosa as is the glans (like the inside of the mouth and contains 15% of the sexual receptors) and includes the ridged band looped to the frenulum (where all but 15% of the sexual receptors are), aprocine glands that produce pheromones, highly veinous-240 feet of veins, Langerhans cells that secrete Langerin that kills HIV, (further research “Gary’s Lost List”). Circumcision cuts off half of the penile skin (15 square inches grown man), 65%-85% of the sexual receptors (85% when the frenulum is scalpel scraped off), wrecks the function, diminishes sensation that remains by keratinization (a 45 aged man will have keratinization of about 1-2 condoms thick), causes thin scarring (further sensation loss) from the cut line up to include the tip of the glans by having the foreskin torn from the glans exactly like having the fingernails torn off, stops the sexual electrical discharging of the foreskin mucosa contacting the glans mucosa, draws out vaginal lubrication at times requiring lube, makes it necessary for long vigorous strokes as opposed to gentle short strokes. Circumcised men need to concentrate on keeping the feeling when intact guys just ride the wave. Intact men can orgasm hands free by doing kegal because it increases the glans with each squeeze thereby automatically pulling back the foreskin each time. NOTE: to say uncircumcised means needing to be circumcise. Best to say intact. FUNCTION: the dartos muscle tenses when excited. This creates a one piece skin tube that where action of this tube will get transferred to the ridged band which transfers this action to the frenulum creating a stepped sexual response. Circumcision destroys this as any action will not be transferred to the frenulum, direct action is needed. Foreskin restoration by skin tension grows new skin by replicating cells of the foreskin remnant, so it can’t replace the sexual receptors and all lost. It does though de-keratinize and increase sensitive mucosa area and restore the double gliding sleeve function. Sexual pleasure is not linear. It is both breadth and depth. One can loose all the sexual receptors and still orgasm. It takes longer, more concentration and makes it so that it is more work than pleasure. (As told by a blogger.) An intact man does not feel naked when nude because his glans is not exposed. The foreskin protects against frost bite and sun’s UV rays that destroy receptors. Also protects against the glans getting caught in the zipper which leaves a permanent dark mark (my experience). I chose circumcision at age 5 and was happy until I discovered the foreplays i would miss out and functions. It is the biggest mistake of my life. Cheers.
(ref. Sorrells et al. Adult touch sensitivity test, John Taylor’s The Frenulum Dalta and it’s loss to circumcision, also check out James Prescott’s Origin of Violence and Dr, Dean Edell on youtube, also me on youtube Penis Parade.
Circumcision and testicle crushing is common in polygamous tribes. Done to limit the ability of the younger males to impregnate the older males wives. Circumcision makes intercourse longer so the older male may more likely interupt. Testicle crushing is to limit the amount of sperm. Both of course are not foolproof but perhaps long term useful tools. This does not appear to be the case for Mormons but it is worth considering given polygamous cultures.
Luke 2:21-24, 39-40
After eight days had passed, it was time to circumcise the child; and he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb. When the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord, and they offered a sacrifice according to what is stated in the law of the Lord, “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons”. . . When they had finished everything required by the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth. The child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom; and the favor of God was upon him.
[…] Various bloggers have debated the topic too, with some very interesting comments – https://ldsanarchy.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/why-do-lds-still-circumcise-their-boys/ […]
Why do LDS still circumcise their boys?
Because they cling to tradition more than they cling to truth. They understand what their friends might say better than they understand what Christ has said.
I have heard many horror stories from Ward members as my wife and I have spoken to people on this subject.
Horror stories??? Like botched jobs?! (I hope not…)
I’d been told that my son and I were born in God’s image!!! And blessedly, we were both whelped with foreskins!!!
God, with infinite wisdom, and with his helpmeet, Mother Nature, designed our penises to be the perfect adjunct to our mates’ vaginae.
Tell me, is the Mormons’ God a different God than mine? I think not…
Like botched jobs
One sister told my wife that their doctor cut off too much skin during the procedure. The poor baby screamed for hours, and they were told that he would probably have erection issues later in life.
^ and that is why it’s just to leave it as Mother Nature and God intended it to be. I highly doubt something all males are born with is some freak of nature that’s not there for a reason.
omfg, you are all idiots
Circumcision was about identifying those who were born into the covenant and keeping the bloodline clean of bad blood.
Ever wonder why the Sons of Jacob killed a bunch of guyz they just circumsized?
It wasn’t just because they were easy prey. The men broke a promise and paid the going price of the time.
The circumcision is also a TOKEN OF THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT (The Bow/Arc placed in the clouds.)
It’s A MARK OF THE COVENANT. Yes, it is mutilation to those who don’t know what it represents.
No we don’t need to practice it anymore. Yes, those that do it are still living the Law of Moses. Those who do, can do it. Would I do it to my son? Only if I was revealed to me personally to do so.
I think circumcision is a very poor mark for the “good” bloodline considering the oldest documentary evidence for circumcision comes from ancient Egypt, and circumcision was common, but not universal, among ancient Semitic peoples.
A response to this post based in the most current medical research can be found here:
http://ccspencer.blogspot.com/2010/11/to-snip-or-not-to-snip.html
Circumcision has not been done away as it is a TOKEN of an EVERLASTING Covenant, what was done away was the false notion the children were some how unholy if they were not circumcised (Law of Circumcision) a law made unto themselves, (Israelites) not of God. You need to read it all again…… If the Covenant is everlasting, so is the token, If not God is a changeable God and Partial. It has not been done away, and the LDS still do it for a few reasons, “Just in Case” and cleanliness, yet both are for the wrong reason. Circumcision had nothing to do with Mosaic Law….. There was NEVER given us by God “The Law Of Circumcision”
zdaniel:
Read the discussion here.
Unfortunately, this post failed to stop one family from choosing to mutilate their child’s genitals.
this is most peculiar…I’ve been an LDS for like my whole life and it’s the first time I hear about LDS members circumcising their sons…I guess it’s their choice, for whatever reason, but I’m afraid if it’s a religious one it’s made on a very wrong understanding of the doctrine. I’m really surprised…but then again there are a lot of members that do a lot of crazy things and give people the impression that that’s the way the church really is…our guide to the scriptures says, and i quote “The token of the Abrahamic covenant for male Israelites during Old Testament dispensations (Gen. 17:10–11, 23–27; JST, Gen. 17:11). Circumcision WAS performed by cutting off the “flesh of the foreskin” of male infants and adults alike. Those who received it enjoyed the privileges and accepted the responsibilities of the covenant. CIRCUMCISION AS A TOKEN OF THE COVENANT WAS DONE AWAY WITH BY CHRIST’S MISSION (Moro. 8:8; D&C 74:3–7).
San Francisco looking into banning circumcision by calling it what it is — child genital mutilation.
Comment Edited to make the above link work.
What’s the link?
Thanks for pointing out that the link didn’t work. Here are just the URLs to sites about it:
http://www.sfmgmbill.org/Site/Home.html
http://www.disinfo.com/2011/02/will-san-francisco-ban-circumcision-via-the-male-genital-mutilation-mgm-bill/
The above quoted scriptures tell us that circumcision is not necessary for children to be considered clean or part of God’s people. The apostle above told the members of the church not to circumcise because they had a hard time letting go of Jewish culture and embracing Christ’s gospel. None of these scriptures tell us that circumcision is evil baby mutilation (or it would have never been practiced in the first place).
As a father of a boy I decided to circumcise my son for many reasons. Spiritually I felt it was a personal (or familial) dedication of my son to God. As a physician and Vietnam veteran I have seen 10 times more infections under the foreskin that caused serious damage than I have botched circumcisions. Yes you can clean underneath it and avoid any increased risk of infection, but that is just my anecdotal experience. I was present during the circumcision and my son didn’t wail or cry at all, unlike when he had his first diaper change. I sang him a hymn that I had sung to him in the womb and it was such a spiritual experience that the non member doctor started to make inquiries into my religion.
Just thought I would share a positive circumcision experience because this message board is so full of people screaming baby mutilation. I understand the other side of the coin and I know it doesn’t make any parent less of a parent who weighs the issue and decides against circumcision. The latter day prophets have left it up to individual families to decide, we can do that without judging each other.
In re: to “None of these scriptures tell us that circumcision is evil baby mutilation (or it would have never been practiced in the first place).”
Here is a comment from LDSA on the Connecting with Pixels post:
I too have a hard time imagining God requiring the complete mutilation of the foreskin of infant boys. Especially considering the Egyptians practiced the current form of mutilating circumcision prior to the time of Abraham — what good would it have been to use that as a token of a special covenant with Abraham’s people?
In re: to “circumcision is not necessary for children to be considered clean” — you must not really mean “clean” Tim, b/c you go on to say, “I have seen 10 times more infections under the foreskin that caused serious damage than I have botched circumcisions. Yes you can clean underneath it and avoid any increased risk of infection, but that is just my anecdotal experience.” Lol.
I apologize if addressing briefly my thoughts/experiences on both the spiritual and physical aspects of circumcision was confusing Justin, though I suspect you probably understand my post better than you pretended to. My post came solely from my own experience. I make that obvious and don’t expect anyone reading it to give it more weight than it deserves. If there is something you want to discuss I can’t understand what it is from your “reply.”
Is your argument that the procedure has created more medical problems than the increased risk of infection has? Or that there simply is no increased risk of certain health problems? Or are you just saying that it’s spiritually completely useless and so should never be done? I’d disagree and I at least have provided some basis for my opinion (personal spiritual experience, experience in the ER, collegues in pediatrics, and experience in an environment where good hygiene was impossible) but you are free to disagree. Why not just say that instead of mocking my post with an infantile /Lol? My aim isn’t to force anyone to circumcise their child, I just wanted to show the other side of the coin through my own experience with it.
Tim:
My response to the first part of your comment that I quoted,
was to point out that it is unlikely that the current practice of the complete removal of all foreskin is what God required of Abraham’s posterity in the first place. The comment I quoted from LDSA and the paragraph that follows are the explanation why that is the case.
Nothing there was intended to be mocking or infantile to you — rather just a response to your casual dropping of the ol’ “God commanded circumcision at one point, so it can’t be that bad,” line — which doesn’t apply to the current practice of infant circumcision.
My response to the second part of your comment that I quoted seems to be where you felt the most put-off by what I wrote. Your initial,
was funny to me when I read it along side your later,
I wasn’t doubting the truth of your anecdote nor assuming that your aim was to force circumcision on others — merely, it made me chuckle [hence the “Lol”] when I read you first say that circumcision isn’t necessary to make a child clean, and then that in your experience infection is higher in cases of not circumcising.
In re: to
the only question I asked in my comment was:
So I guess you could “reply” to that if you wanted to. However, it was largely a rhetorical question.
Since a child is born with an intact foreskin — the burden of proof is on the pro-circumcision crowd to demonstrate why cutting an infant’s tissue off is necessary. Barring religious obligations [which are addressed in the OP and in the previous comments], the matter is largely a coin-flip.
The evidence is inconclusive or largely anecdotal for one side or the other. When this is the case — it means that the pro-circ. crowd has failed to surpass the burden of proof, and the assumed state of intact foreskin therefore remains.
If religious obligations are out the window and health reasons are still largely a toss-up — then it most often comes down to social norms and the whole need to “look like Daddy” sort of reasoning. However, that is not sufficient cause for mutilating an intact penis. LDSA mentioned this in a previous comment — let the child decide later if he wants to “look like Daddy” or keep the foreskin he was born with.
“There is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention or hygiene. Partly in the light of the complications which can arise during or after circumcision, circumcision is not justifiable except on medical/therapeutic grounds. Insofar as there are medical benefits, such as a possibly reduced risk of HIV infection, it is reasonable to put off circumcision until the age at which such a risk is relevant and the boy himself can decide about the intervention, or can opt for any available alternatives.
“Contrary to what is often thought, circumcision entails the risk of medical and psychological complications. The most common complications are bleeding, infections, meatus stenosis (narrowing of the urethra) and panic attacks. Partial or complete penis amputations as a result of complications following circumcisions have also been reported, as have psychological problems as a result of the circumcision.
“Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is contrary to the rule that minors may only be exposed to medical treatments if illness or abnormalities are present, or if it can be convincingly demonstrated that the medical intervention is in the interest of the child, as in the case of vaccinations.
“Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors conflicts with the child’s right to autonomy and physical integrity.”
That is the official position of the Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG). But then, Holland never suffered from anti-masturbation hysteria, so circumcision never became customary there.
Over 800 years ago Moses Maimonides tells the harms of circumcision, also known as the “Rambam”, was a medieval Jewish rabbi, physician and philosopher. “…the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible.” & “The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him. In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision.”
Oh and uh, by the way? Swaziland was one of the countries where HIV was more prevalent among the CIRCUMCISED men. (21.8% v 19.5%) http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR202/FR202.pdf table 14.10 – Witness the rape of Africa.
…….. .There is a movement of Jews who are questioning circumcision, and working to end this abuse of children. The movement ranges from the Orthodox to the secular, and includes mothers, fathers, scholars, historians, medical professionals, activists, and intellectuals.
Jewish Groups for Genital Integrity
Circumcision: A Jewish Feminist Perspective by Miriam Pollack
http://www.noharmm.org/pollack.htm
Jewish Intactivist Miriam Pollack has some great commentary on Foreskin Man in this recent interview.
http://www.beyondthebris.com/2011/07/defying-convention-interview-with_27.html
Jews Speak Out in Favor of Banning Circumcision on Minors
http://intactnews.org/node/103/1311885181/jews-speak-out-favor-banning-circumcision-minors
* Brit Shalom Celebrants by Mark D. Reiss, M.D. http://www.circumstitions.com/Jewish-shalom.html
* Questioning Circumcision: A Jewish Perspective by Ron Goldman, Ph.D. http://www.jewishcircumcision.org
* The Current Judaic Movement to End Circumcision: Part 1
http://intactnews.org/node/105/1311886372/jewish-voices-current-judaic-movement-end-circumcision-part-1 …………..
So this post is one of the most visited on the LDSA blog — usually from people searching “Do mormons circumcise” or “LDS and circumcision“. This is LDSA’s post from some years back. I’ve commented on it, but I wanted to write what made our family choose not to circumcise our sons.
In the US — the early-to-mid 19th century’s puritan craze over vegetarian/high-fiber diets and anti-sex/masturbation doctrine are inexorably tied to the modern prevalence of genital mutilation in infant boys.
The procedure of routine circumcision became commonplace in the late 19th, early 20th century. Currently, only the US still circumcises a majority of male infants — despite the masturbation hysteria having long since died down.
Dr. E.J. Spratling prescribed in 1895 the method of circumcision as it is practiced in hospitals today.
Back in the 1830’s, Sylvester Graham, of Graham Cracker fame [relative of mine BTW], crusaded against anything and everything that he thought incited lust. According to Graham, men should abstain from sex until the age of 30 and have sex just once a month after that. To control lust, he also prescribed a high-fiber vegetarian diet. Graham believed that adhering to his diet would prevent people from having impure thoughts and would stop masturbation.
Following Graham was John Kellogg. He was also obsessed with “sexual purity” — in fact, he never made love to his wife. To “remedy” the sin of masturbation, he advocated circumcision without anesthetic for boys and mutilation of the clitoris with carbolic acid for girls.
The diets prescribed by both Graham and Kellogg were formulated to reduce libido and promote impotence and infertility — and [in the case of Kellogg] were to go along with genital mutilation for girls and boys to make sure lust was kept in check.
Circumcision in the West received another boost during the World Wars because, it was claimed, the procedure was necessary for soldiers for “hygienic reasons”. [see Tim’s comments above].
In summary — circumcision in the US is largely based on:
*Anti-masturbation fervor
*Hygiene for soldiers
*Misunderstanding of religious obligations
Since a child is born with an intact foreskin — the burden of proof should be on the pro-circumcision crowd to demonstrate why cutting an infant’s tissue off is necessary. Barring religious obligations [which are addressed in the OP], the matter is largely a coin-flip — some studies show benefits, some show nothing.
The body of evidence is inconclusive or largely anecdotal for one side or the other. When this is the case — it means that the pro-circumcision crowd has failed to surpass the burden of proof, and the assumed state of intact foreskin therefore remains.
It would be the same thing if I put forward a claim that all male infants earlobes should be cut off at birth. It’s just a flap of skin — it would solve the problem of boys getting their ears pierced contrary to Pres. Hinckley’s “revelation” on the matter.
If religious obligations are out the window [and they are] and health reasons are still largely a toss-up [my son’s doesn’t need to be circumcised in order to reduce his risk of STDs anyway — how about yours?] — then, in my estimation, most of this comes down to either unchallenged social norms or the whole need to “look like Daddy” thing.
However, that is not sufficient cause for mutilating an intact penis. Before we were staunchly anit-circumsicion, we had first decided — why not just let the child decide later if he wants to “look like Daddy” or keep the foreskin he was born with? Why are we making such a decision for him as an infant? As though he’d die of some gangrenous foreskin infection or incur God’s wrath for still being intact after 8 days of birth before he’d be able to decide for himself what elective surgical procedures should take place on his penis.
I am amazed at how many Mormons can rationalize cutting their baby boys genitals! Is it so hard to understand that God made little boys just the way they were supposed to be…..whole? And is it so hard to understand that any potential future “male” problems don’t necessarily mean that “every” boy will be plagued by them? Bottom line is, we don’t cut healthy parts of baby girls off for any reason, so why is it that people see boys as different? And if a LDS parent really believes in their religion, WHY are they making permanent decisions for their infant son’s genitals and not giving him “free agency” to make such decisions for himself, if they are warranted or desired in the future? Parents need to focus on making decisions for their children to keep them away from harm, not causing them harm. Circumcision is satanic and barbaric and should not be condoned in any religion.
This explains circumcision!
Well…maybe, but it’s funny.
wildwahinepaddler, if Mormons believed their religion (and their scriptures), they would believe this scripture:
Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me.
(Book of Mormon | Moroni 8:8)
I think most LDS people don’t pay much attention to that last phrase in this verse.
@Toni….. are you Mormon? I was raised to believe that “the body is a temple”…… how does cutting a baby boys precious temple in line with that? It is mighty hypocritical in my eyes. But maybe that’s one reason I don’t go to that church anymore. (And it’s NOT the church, it’s the people.)
And… how convenient for them to only look at what they want to see!!!
wildwahinepaddler, I’m a bit confused about your reply to me. I quoted you a scripture that said: “the law of circumcision is done away in me.” That means Jesus said, as plainly as possible, “No more circumcision,” thus an LDS person who knows their scriptures well will see no religious reason to cut pieces of flesh off of their sons. LDS people should be refusing to have their sons circumcised, based on this scripture.
I saw a circumcision done when I was 17. After that, I said I was never going to circumcise any son I had. When I read the scripture in Mormon 8:8 (I’m LDS), that clinched it for me. Then I was lucky enough to marry an uncircumcised man, who saw no reason to chop a piece of flesh of his son and was glad I felt the way I did.
So, to answer your questions, “Yes, and I believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God, but I also believe that we LDS don’t understand it as well as we should.” (Read denver snuffer’s books/blog for examples of how much we don’t understand.)
Next answer: The body IS a temple for the spirit that has been put into it. I don’t believe cutting a boy respects that; I don’t know why God commanded circumcision in the Old Testament, but for nearly two thousand years it has not been a commandment, notwithstanding Peter’s opinion to the contrary (don’t know the reference offhand, but Peter and Paul went round and round about the necessity of circumcision).
Toni@ I am not sure why you are confused by my reply. I was only agreeing with you an sharing my view? but I think we are in agreement on this issue.
Okay. I thought you misunderstood me, and thought I believed boys should be circumcised. Yes, we are definitely in agreement.
“every wit whole” I love that Jesus bucked the evil of the system by restoring everything of the man at the temple including his foreskin. That really set the Jewish Priests a fire.
@Toni…..I might actually consider going back to church if I could find more people there like you there. I like your mindset!
Thanks. 🙂
I do realize I’m not in the majority. Still, if you were in my area, I’d love for you to go to church (so I could have someone like you to hang out with there).
BTW…. I just sent out some of this information (along with some other circumcision information) to the Relief society Presidents on my island. I think I will work on the other islands as well. I don’t think there are many “accidents” in this life….. and because I ran across this blog, I was enlightened and I now want to pass circumcision information on to this group of people whom I feel a connection to. I never knew about the message in the scriptures before, so I was ignorant of them. Whoever ends up opening my information….will be reading through it, and if they choose to ignore it and keep it from others, they will be accountable for that. That is what free agency is all about, and we are all responsible for our decisions where that is concerned. I prayed as I mailed the packets, the rest is up to them. I am so glad I made a new friend! I am also associated with NOCIRC, Peaceful Parenting, The Whole Network, Saving our Sons, and a few others. There are ALOT of advocates out there trying to save babies…. I am just one.
I’ve heard of Peaceful Parenting. I was part of a NOCIRC group when I was on facebook. I haven’t heard of the other groups.
There are so many! I am an admin. for the Hawaii FB page for The Whole Network, along with one other man. I especially respect the Jewish groups that are adamant about stopping circumcision and there are quite a few of those! Excellent book is “Jewish Women Speak Out”….. has an excellent chapter on circumcision from a womans (moms) perspective. I guess you could call me an Intactivist, and there is a page for that too! I am just getting ready to send a circumcision video to some legislators!!!!!
Galations 5:2-6
2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
So why is it the church leaders do not take a stand on this? They sure do make it clear that they don’t approve of gay people marrying….what is your take on them NOT taking a stand on banning circumcision? It seems cowardly to me.
The requirement of the law is fulfilled in the coming of Christ. It’s not just the lds religion that still practices circumcision, it’s due to health reasons. You are a moron. I am a Mormon. Get your facts straight.
Britton, who are you addressing?
I suppose a real “moron” would not have their facts straight and know that no medical organization in the world recommends routine infant circumcision… there is no compelling evidence to do so, so the health reasons are ridiculous. Most of the worlds men are natural and intact, so it is mostly Jewish and Muslims who cut genitals for religious reasons and the U.S. for stupid reasons. I can’t imagine a loving God that would condone cutting baby boys genitals for any reason…. just think about it for a minute. Circumcision is evil.
This topic is also being discussed on BabyCenter, LDS. What a travesty that members actually state that because circumcision is not specifically forbidden in their interpretation, that they don’t consider it scripture that needs to be followed. Satan is definitely alive and well!
I have learned that discussions about circumcision between those who see no reason to do it [especially since Jesus (and Paul) said it was done away] and those who insist dire medical consequences will befall those who don’t do it are futile. Neither side is interested in changing. Rarely does someone come in who is impartial, like I was when I watched a circumcision being done (I was 17).
I know men who are not circumcised. I know boys who are not circumcised. They have zero, zip, nada health issues in regards to that.
I have no clue why such a thing was commanded in the old days, but I do know that infants were not circumcised until they were old enough not to bleed to death. They had also been on this earth long enough to have decided they were loved.
Blindly following something because someone is brainwashed to believe that “experts” really know something is not something I was taught to do. My mother put doubts into my head about so-called experts.
So, I refused to entertain the idea of circing a son and was upheld in that decision by a non-circ’d spouse.
I also think it in bad form for a personal attack. One is not a “moron” because one has an opposing opinion.
I made a comment on here three times. This thread is not closed. Why is it not working?
Commenting in two parts to see if it will work.
I have learned that discussions about circumcision between those who see no reason to do it [especially since Jesus (and Paul) said it was done away] and those who insist dire medical consequences will befall those who don’t do it are futile. Neither side is interested in changing. Rarely does someone come in who is impartial, like I was when I watched a circumcision being done (I was 17).
I know men who are not circumcised. I know boys who are not circumcised. They have zero, zip, nada health issues in regards to that.
I have no clue why such a thing was commanded in the old days, but I do know that infants were not circumcised until they were old enough not to bleed to death. They had also been on this earth long enough to have decided they were loved.
Blindly following something because someone is brainwashed to believe that “experts” really know something is not something I was taught to do. My mother put doubts into my head about so-called experts.
So, I refused to entertain the idea of circing a son and was upheld in that decision by a non-circ’d spouse.
I also think it in bad form for a personal attack. One is not a “moron” because one has an opposing opinion.
NOW, I’m seeing the second half only of the post I tried to make.
Let’s do it this way: wildwahinepaddler, click on my name and send me an email, and I’ll email you the comment if you’re interested in it. (I tried posting it four times. The first three times, it disappeared when I closed the internet and came back on. The fourth time, it appeared to post when I posted in two parts, but showed two of the original posts, as well. This time, when I closed and opened the internet to see if anything posted, it’s showing the second of the divided post only.)
Toni — your comments were stuck in moderation for some reason — They couldn’t get out until an admin approved them — so I’ve approved them.
Thanks.
Here’s something interesting on the subject:
http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2011/12/cycles-of-truth.html
Interesting. Thanks for sharing.
But he doesn’t address this scripture: “wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me.” Moroni 8:8
Jesus removed the curse of Adam which was also before Abraham’s time. It sounds like the Book of Mormon says circumcision may be tied to Adam’s transgression and was done away because of the Atonement, just like Adam’s “curse” was taken away.
I don’t find that interesting at all.
A lot of the trouble in attempting to justify the circumcision token that was commanded to Abraham — is that people are assuming the mutilating cutting that currently takes place [which we call “circumcision”] — is the same form of “muwlah” that YHVH commanded of Abraham’s seed as a token of the covenant.
Since the complete mutilation form of cutting was practiced among Egyptians prior to Abraham’s time — I doubt that God would have commanded that very same ritual as a way to distinguish His covenant people. I would imagine that it was some other form of ritual cut to foreskin — one that did not completely remove altogether — but just left it marked.
Hi Toni!
Actually you are right about that Justin. The “circumcision” of the Old Testament was a snip of the end of the foreskin, but that was later changed by a Rabbi to the more severe form of cutting we see today. I believe this happened because Jewish men were found to be doing a form of “restoring”…. in order to fit in with the Greeks. In fact, I don’t have the link, but it even says that the Rabbi acknowledges that the more severe cutting was what was desired to diminish sexual enjoyment…. and allow the Jewish men to devote more time to their religious studies. Maybe someone else has that link to share, but I think that is pretty accurate.
Oh it was the link for the “denversnuffer” that I did not find interesting…. lol…. I always enjoy reading what Toni has to say.
I agree with Justin that ancient circumcision was not the same as modern mutilation.
I found Denver’s male/female circumcision parallel to be interesting.
In re: to,
I can remember this:
The law of circumcision was never intended for the Gentiles in the first place — and the Egyptian Gentiles practiced a “reduced function” circumcision. Then God revealed to Abraham a “fully functional” circumcision — but over time the Jews perverted the practice back to the Gentile Egyptian practice of a “reduced function” circumcision. Next Christ comes and does away with the practice among the church altogether, restoring full function to all His believing people [both Jew and Gentile]. Finally, the unbelieving Jews have re-instated the “reduced function” circumcision among the Gentile nations [particularly the US], including among the Gentile LDS.
Abraham’s practice was a form that kept all the functions of the male organ intact. In other words, he didn’t copy or get the practice from the Egyptians, but his form of circumcision came from a revelation from God — being different than what the tribes of the earth were already doing.
Given what is known about the current practice that we call “circumcision”, and the many problems and misery associated with it — it is doubtful that the modern practice conforms to the Abrahamic rite. Also, considering that we are largely living under a satanic system today, I doubt the norms would allow for people to continue to practice the original Abrahamic rite given by God through revelation.
To me it makes more sense that the Egyptian and Abraham rites were fundamentally different, although called by the same name, and that it would be Satan’s desire to have everyone copy the pagan Egyptian practice, while deceiving them into believing they are practicing what Abraham practiced.
Wow Justin… I don’t know what to say. I feel deeply in my soul that circumcision is EVIL…. and that even my own wonderful, loving, caring daughter succumbed to it’s evil desire and her eyes and heart were numbed as she allowed her husband to make such a permanent decision for our grandson (baby) just six months ago. Afterwards, she grappled with the raw wound that had been inflicted on her precious son….and worried about it everyday. She is grappling with what she allowed to be done to her baby…..and the guilt she feels keeps her part way into complete understanding of what she did…. and part way into denial for something I believe she cannot fully acknowledge because it is too painful. She has made comments to me that she just didn’t know….. yet she had full access to all the information as well as knowledge of her mother’s similar experience with her brother 32 years before…yet she ignored the warnings. Guilt and denial are serious motivators for eyes that are too blind to see…..and refuse to see the truth. I pray every day that she only has girls from now on and it weights heavy on my heart. Thank you for your post.
Denver is saying that circumcision was an “ordinance.” I wonder if this is just an assumption on his part or if there is actual evidence of the Melchizedek, Aaronic or Levitical priesthoods being necessary to perform a circumcision anciently?
LDSA — the rite had to be performed at 8 days of age, come hell or high water. To my knowledge it was common practice to take the child to the temple — b/c in modern Judaism, the synagogue and the rabbis stepped in to replace functions previously performed by the temple.
However, from what I know, the 8 days thing pretty well trumps anything else — meaning, if no temple or no priest was present — the father would have to do it himself [like Moses], right there on the spot.
You also got me wondering to what extent it was a prescribed rite given directly by revelation from God.
Genesis 17:11 reads:
however, a literal Hebrew translation renders this verse:
The verb tenses are different. The literal rendering says, essentially, that since they have started cutting the flesh of their foreskin — it had therefore [or by virtue of the fact that they had started doing it] become the token of a covenant between God and them.
I asked Brother Snuffer, in a message, about Moroni 8:8 and he replied on his blog: http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2011/12/answer-to-moroni-8-8.html
He said that the infant circumcision is done away, but he doesn’t see that scripture addressing adult circumcision which, he said, is what he was trying to attempt in his original post about it.
I think if an adult wants to be circumcised, they have the right to that choice. I also agree that the original circumcision was not as mutilating as it is in our society (and has been for a while).
I just made a post which I don’t see. It is probably in the spam folder because it has a link. Please release it for me. Thanks.
Some things just don’t add up in my mind about this theory:
First, circumcision still doesn’t strike me as an ordinance of the priesthood. If it were, and it were a necessary ordinance (an ordinance of salvation, which is what Denver’s second Joseph Smith quote was talking about), then Joseph would have restored the rite, would he not have? Or, at the very least, wouldn’t he have mentioned that it needed to be restored? But I don’t recall ever reading anything that Joseph wrote concerning circumcision (apart from the revelation in the D&C and the Book of Mormon scripture, both of which do not cast it as something that needs to come back.)
Second, I don’t know of any evidence of circumcision among the people of the Lord prior to Abraham. .
Third, adult circumcision was done away among the saints in Jerusalem. Denver is talking of adult circumcision needing to be restored and this strikes me as odd that the apostles would choose to do away with something that was part of the law of Christ, as Denver claims.
Finally, the John 7:23 scripture that I quoted in the post creates a real problem to this theory of circumcision restoration. Why would the Lord take a circumcised, adult male Jew and make him intact if circumcision was something necessary among his people?
Very good points LDSA.
I never thought of bringing Joseph Smith into it, but I do believe you’re right. If it was that important, surely he would have said something about it.
The situation I had with the Moms on the LDS and visitors….was that in addition to being hostile, some of them claimed that because there has not been any modern day revelation related to circumcision and there is no “forbidding” of the act in the Book of Mormon, then it was up to individual members to decide if they would circumcise their baby boys. This struck me as odd.
wildwahinepaddler, I have had this brought up to me, also, on an LDS forum. I didn’t think it was worth pursuing, so I let the matter drop.
Still, if we follow the “don’ts” in D&C section 89 when it specifically says it isn’t a commandment, why not believe Jesus when He says there is no need to circumcise babies? Why hurt a baby if there is no reason to? False traditions or blindly following is not a good reason, in my opinion. It isn’t as if the information is missing. It’s pretty obvious that it isn’t necessary.
I guess that is their point…. it is not necessary and not commanded, yet there is no specific “commandment” that says not to. To me, that is like saying, the ten commandments say “Thou shalt not kill”….. yet it doesn’t specifically say that you are forbidden to beat someone up. To me, it is the essence of evil….. (for Satan) to blur the meanings of the scripture and wallow in watching “good intentioned” people make decisions for their babies to be cut up for no reason. I see Satan reveling in such misguided interpretations by parents, as perfect babies sent from God are “altered”, marked, and scarred (and in some cases maimed or even die) to satisfy personal vanity and it is then justified in hostility by well meaning parents. I don’t know why church leaders are not inspired to speak out specifically about this unnecessary cutting on precious infants ….In my opinion it speaks clearly of the power of evil. EVIL IS VERY POWERFUL…. and of course Satan is tricky and will always come in ” sheeps clothing” when people are not paying close attention. I believe genital cutting on infants who are unable to consent, is the essence of evil. It’s difficult for me to watch others not seeing it….. I want to scream from the roof tops, yet it would fall on so many deaf ears. It’s so sad that I pray for baby girls to be born (like many Jewish mothers do).
To: TIM
“I was present during the circumcision and my son didn’t wail or cry at all…”
THAT’S BECAUSE HE WAS IN SHOCK!!!!!!
What I DO NOT understand is why the leaders of the church speak out against getting our ears pierced or getting body tattoos and yet do not speak out against removing a FUNCTIONAL BODY PART from an infant boy!!!
ANY PARENT (Tim) that circumcises his child does not have any credibility when it comes to changing are mutilating other body parts!
In fact, Tim, you should set the EXAMPLE for your son and get those ears, tongue, lip, nose, chin and/or eye brow pierced because that bodily MUTILATION is NOTHING compared to what YOU DID to your baby boy!!!!!!!!!!
It is SO simple people!
“Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me.”
~Moroni 8:8
CHRIST SAID, “THE LAW OF CIRCUMCISION IS DONE AWAY IN ME.”
Why would ANY parent choose to circumcise their child without a law???
And another thing, TIM, you are the worst kind of child sexual abuse offender because you SANG A HYMN to him while he was being mutilated!!! You SPIRITUALLY ABUSED your baby boy as well!!!!!!!
My wife’s take on Tim this morning:
“It’s just that he was circumcised as a baby, so he thought an intact penis would ‘look weird’.”
Also — Christine — about the hymn-singing, she agreed with you, saying that that’s like those creepy movies [Frailty comes to mind] where the bad guy thinks you are “possessed with a devil” and what he’s doing is “God’s will” — so he’ll sing a hymn while he’s suffocating you with pillow over your face.
I noticed that he said:
An LDS woman we know was forced to have her sons circumcised by her husband [who feels about the same way that Tim does about it all]. She chose circumcision over divorce, but fears to have more children lest they not be daughters. For what it’s worth — she reported that she told the circumciser to, “cut off as little as you can and still make it look circumcised to my husband.“
Christine, Justin@ thank you for your insight. It helps me believe that at least some people understand the issue with circumcision (genital cutting on minors) and it’s horrors. I don’t now if you all are Mormon or not, but Moroni 8:8 speaks clearly that circumcision is down away with. Any member of the church that rationalizes this, is being blinded by evil……in my heart I believe that only the worst kind of evil is capable of turning the heads of seemingly loving, Christian parents and getting them to rationalize brutalizing a babies body! Some might think this harsh, but I don’t. God created the perfect bodies of baby boys, just the way nature intended…..and anyone who condones surgically altering it is committing sin, in my opinion. The bullying that goes on by some Mormon husbands that demand the cutting of their infant sons genitals, is terrible and wrong, but I know it happens every day. I pray every day that this evil be put out into the light so that other people might be enlightened, and stop this barbaric practice which is an assault on innocent, defenseless infants.
I am active LDS…endowed, married and sealed in the Temple, a return missionary….
My son was born 22 years ago in Salt Lake City. I did not want my son circumcised and I didn’t even know what it really was or what it really did at the time. I was not aware of Moroni 8:8, even though I had read the Book of Mormon many, many times and taught from it on my mission. I just KNEW it was wrong!
My FORMER husband, though, demanded it and took my son to have it done.
In June of 2010 I became aware of what circumcision really was, what it really did to a functioning body part and I was brought to my knees in tears and pain that this was forced upon my son and so many little ones.
Since then I have become an Intactivist and try to help others understand what a horrific, barbaric and tortuous practice circumcision is.
I have also begged my sons forgiveness for what was done to him….
A recent family scripture study session had us studying Moroni 8 and Matthew 18.
So, Mormon says that anyone who thinks that little children have sin (for example, due to original sin) and thus are in need of baptism (for the remission of sins), are condemned to go to hell upon death (unless they repent of such a thought.) So, we can’t even think badly towards little children, or we will go to hell.
That’s a pretty harsh penalty for just thinking a thought and it covers everyone, even for those who are simply taught a tradition of infant baptism. I believe it is because it is a self-evident fact that little children are pure (purified) and innocent (guiltless and justified) and angelic or holy (sanctified.) Anyone who has observed a little child can plainly see this fact, so to call such holy things evil is akin to seeing the Sun shining at noon-day and declaring it to be night-time.
In Matthew 18, we find the Lord explaining that little children have angels in heaven, in other words, that little children are higher in hierarchy than are the angels in heaven, or that the angels take orders (or took orders) from little children (in the pre-mortal existence). So, to offend a little child is to offend a creature greater than an angel. And such an offense is a direct offense against God, since God is as a little child, except with knowledge of good and evil, all power, all knowledge, all wisdom, etc. In other words, all little children are the friends of God, being as He is, or He is as they are. So, God holds everyone responsible for how we think towards them, speak towards them (including tone of voice) and act towards them, because these creatures are, essentially, proxies for God, being like Him. This means we have to tread lightly when dealing with little children, just as we must tread lightly when dealing with God.
Jesus’ words are just as harsh for those who offend little children as are Mormon’s words, saying, “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.”
Now, surely circumcision must be considered an offense against little children, which is the amputation of a part of their body without their consent, would it not? This is worse than merely thinking bad thoughts towards them, right? And certainly worse than speaking harsh words towards them. Certainly physical abuse is worse than verbal abuse and even unspoken mental abuse (thinking that they have sin or are evil), nevertheless, even the lesser of these evils (thinking bad thoughts towards them) merits hell. How much more does physical abuse, the amputation of part of their sexual organ, which was designed to give them pleasure, so that it no longer functions as it was designed by God to function, how much more would such irreversible abuse, for you cannot restore the organ to intactness, merit hell? Obviously, repentance is always available, but there are many people who feel no remorse for having done this to their sons, thinking it is no offense. Also, restitution is a part of the repentance process, so, having authorized the irreplaceable removal of the most sensitive parts of the organ, how can such people undo the damage done?
Anyway, I’m just thinking out loud. Here is the inspired version text of Matthew 18 that speaks of little children:
These posts have moved me so much! I pray that “Tim” has a heart that is open to this spirit and that he will be able to finally see the truth and make amends. I, too, had a son 32 years ago and bear the guilt of not protecting him from my husband at the time who demanded my baby be cut. A nurse also lied to my face as she took my beautiful, perfect baby from my loving arms, telling me it was no big deal and I would be glad I had him circumcised. She was dead wrong…..when he was returned to me, I was in shock….i ached inside in a place I don’t even know exactly where it was. I had just had a great birth with No drugs and I felt fantastic….then I allowed a barbaric wound to be inflicted on his little body! Even though I consider myself to have been ignorant about circumcision then, in my heart I knew it was wrong and my mama instincts told me so, but I didn’t listen. I will forever bear this regret and the more I have learned about circumcision, the more I know deeply it is wrong and must stop. One of my daughters allowed the same thing to be done to my precious grandson 7 months ago….and again I was in shock…I just couldn’t believe it! That same hurt inside was again inflamed in me and it was then I knew I had been called to advocate openly against this barbaric, traumatic procedure and try to educate other parents and hopefully save a baby boy along the way. The more I work on this mission, the more I have realized that it is the worst evil there is. We know Satan is lurking, and is not stupid so it is no surprise that such evil would be cloaked in justifications… health and otherwise and would be so powerful that it could blind good people, especially parents of those precious babies. I have come to realize that this is the worst evil possible because it has been able to turn the heads and hearts of people who feel in their own mind that they are doing good. I am so grateful to be able to stand back and be able to see genital cutting for what is really is……EVIL in the highest degree.
christine……please click on “wildwahinepaddler” and send me an email, I would love to talk to you!
@ wildwahinepaddler: Done!
Found this from the sayings of Jesus in the gospel of Thomas:
@ Justin: Scripture reference, please?
Oh, I see. Thomas was one of the books that were left out of the “Bible”. Hmmmmm….
Oops…were=was
It is saying 53 at this site:
53.
his disciples said to him
Is circumcision useful or not
he said to them
if it were useful
their father would produce children already circumcised
from their mother
I’ve been circumcised twice. The first time I was about 14 years old and the second time when I was 30 years old. I was baptised when I was 25 years old. Both times had medical reasons. I’m happy that I’m circumcised twice. It was a good thing to do. My father in law told me that a few percent of all male are born without that piece of skin. He is one of them. I’m dutch and most dutch males are not circumcised, it’s not common in Holland. I’m circumcised in two different ways, so if Jews or Muslims complain to me, I tell them it has been done not ones but twice to me. I think it’s better for a man to be circumcised, but it shouldn’t be done to a child, that’s to dangereous.
This thread is about circumcising infant boys . An adult male can choose to alter his body in any way he chooses…. An infant doesn’t get that right. That’s the problem.
When I was expecting my son I was lucky(blessed)to have a very good midwife who refused to sway me one way or the other on this decision. She just referred me to a lot of different information and left the decision up to me. Honestly, the ultimate decision to NOT circumflex came after reading how circumcision decreases sexual pleasure and I thought, “could I in good conscience do such a thing to my sons?” Once the decision was made I did consult with my mom-in-law who’s opinion I value highly(she is mom of 10 boys) and it was her who pointed out that the law of circumcision was done away. I was quite young and didn’t know a lot. I was like, “cool! I just want them to have a fulfilling sex life!” My mom-in-law loves me too btw;)
The law hasn’t been done away, but was fulfilled. 8 days became 8 years or 18/21 years. It’s God’s law, he want us to become like him. We can make this discision when we are old enough. The pour sex story isn’t true, sex is better and cleaner without this piece of skin,
It’s the levitical law and the same law talks about shaving your head, washing yourself, staying pure, sex only with your own spouse, eating healthy. Fulfilling the law means more and not less. It’s like filling a cup that isn’t full yet. It’s not a churchlaw but God’s law, he knows everything. Use your free agency in fulness, it’s up to you and your son. When he’s old enough, he can decide for his own. The piece of skin is ussless, like the hair on your head, but it’s up to you to shave yourself. It isn’t evil or you do it or not, freedom of choose is a blessing. When you can wash yourself daily, it does’t matter or you keep it or not(hair and foreskin), but when the circumstances are not so great, like in the army or dessert, it’s better not to have a foreskin or (long) hair. This is the wisdom of the Lord. The law makes you free of unnecessary problems. Law = Love, but not always understood this way. Loves makes free, truly free. That’s why God is Good, but not always understood. Greetings from Holland, the Dutch Holyland of Zebulon and Efraim, the lost tribes of Israel at the Northsea.
So albarianotlink — was Adam formed from the dust of the earth as a circumcised man — or would you say that he had to undergo that as an ordinance?
Did that “image” include genitals without a foreskin? Did Adam look at the Father on the day of his creation in the garden and see a body that reflected his in every way — or are you saying that Adam would’ve seen God actually had no foreskin?
And,
Would you say that “hath an end” is or is not the same thing as “been done away“.
Jesus told the Nephites:
That sounds like “done away” language to me — what else does “end” mean?
I’ve written in another post — that it is my understanding per that sermon by Jesus to the Nephites that:
Oh yeah — and foreskin =/= hair
@ albarianotlink: You are obviously not very knowledgeable about foreskin.
Jesus is the law and he has no end. The circle was broken and became a line, now the circle is closed again, the beginning and end are connected again. The symbol of God is a circle, an eternal round. He has no beginning or end, humans did but though Christ we can become eternal, like our father in heaven. Some people are born without foreskin, so what is then the image of God? With or without?
I’m circumcised twice for medical reasons, I know verymuch about this practise and this law. Foreskin isn’t hair, but both can be cut off.
Don’t make good evil or evil good, I use drugs and insuline for my health, for me they are good, for others they are bad. Nobody’s circumstanses are the same, that’s why everybody should use their brain. I don’t belief in circumcising boys, adults are different, it’s up to them. The times have changed, we live in different circumstanses then the old israelites, that’s why we can do things differently. That’s not evil. that’s wisdom.
How does a person make a statement that a normal part of a mans body is “useless” ? It’s so weird that people do not understand the natural anatomy of a male and make such uneducated statements!!
I’m a Mormon and not circumcised. I get very bothered when people believe the myths of not being circumcised.
To me it seems that if your circumcised your lazy! Is it really that hard to clean your body??
And as for the studys of it keeping HIV down well you have bigger issues with yourself for sleeping around. Which Mormons shouldn’t be doing anyways.
Circumsision is done in Africa because this is a third world country. And don’t have the means of showers like we do in America.
God made our bodies and every part of our bodies for a reason, out eye lids almost serve the same reason as a foreskin to protect a gental glad.
I,m circumcised for medical reasons. The first time when i was about 14 years old. I became a member when i was 25. When I was thirty I needed a second circumcising, because the first time wasn’t good enough, I found this out after my marriage the same year. So twice is really possible and for me needfull. After the atonement of J.C. there were no religious obligations anymore. The law was fullfilled.
It doesn’t mean that a person isn’t allowed anymore to have a circumcising. There can be circumstances where it will be better to have no foreskin. When you live in a desert or a third world country or when you serve in an army, it can be very usefull. There can be also a 4th reason, that will be circumstances in the future. Disasters, wars, no fresh water ect. These things will happen and can happen any time. Many mormons will leave Utah and will walk to Missiouri, this has been revealed to many people in their patriarchal blessings.
These blessings were giving very recently. Maybe many Mormon men are preparing themselves for possible things in the future. I don’t belief in circumcising kids, they should make this discision for themselve in the future, when they are old enough. Being circumcised is not evil, but should be a personal discision. You don’t have to, but it is still allowed and sometimes necessary and sometimes even wise.
You’re partly right, but not in all things. I’m a Mormon, before a was married/baptised I didn’t sleep around and still not doing that. I clean myselve daily and the most other men also. There must be other reasons why Mormon men are circumcised. There could be more reasons than we know. Investigate before you judge, there is so much knowledge to find, in the world and in the scriptures.
God=Love, let us be Love and don’t just so quickly. Everybody is still learning and we are all imperfect. Loves from Holland.
Once again, the issue is forced circumcision of infant boys, who do not have a “choice” in the matter. No one cares how many times you chose to be cut, or what your reasons were. You are an adult and make those choices for your own body. A baby is defenseless against having his body altered when it is not only healthy the way he was born, but completely normal. Circumcision was done away in the Book of Mormon, there is no rationalization for doing so without a valid medical indication, except a mature man can make whatever decisions he chooses for his own body and it’s on him to be accountable for those decisions. His Body = His choice, plain and simple.
You are exactly right, why do we just judge that a male cannot care for himself and because of that, we should cut part of his body off? It’s ridiculous and very sexist to say such a thing. The foreskin has quite a few important functions; protects the glans and is an important part of the whole sexual anatomy of a male. Being born without a foreskin is actually considered a “birth defect”….. so how do we justify subjecting a newborn to such a traumatic event and cut off part of his normal genitals if they are healthy and normal? It’s not that complicated…….we should NOT be doing it!!!!!
That’s what I said also.
Wow, this is some crazy stuff i just read!
Me being a female, being born into the church, never knew about this…
I see here also again something which is uncommon for Europeans. Now that some of my friends gave birth to babyboys, there was never such a Topic about it, there wasn’t even a thought about a circumcision. Also when i helped change the diapers, there wasn’t anything missing… the same with my brothers, my mother never cut them.
As an european lds going to the US was a big cultural shock in many ways (an example: going to an swim activity wearing a Xxl white tshirt over my bathingsuit) but i think this one tops everything.
Sorry, but I’m quite in shock…
It does seem pretty crazy that more attention isn’t paid to this in the church since it is pretty plainly said in the Book Of Mormon that this practice is “done away in me”. It’s difficult to understand why members of the LDS church would defend cutting their baby boys when it is in the scriptures so clearly. Only about 20 % of the male population of the world has had their genitals cut, so it’s not surprising that if you came from Europe, this may seem shocking! The best thing we can do as members of the LDS church, is to continue to bring attention to the scriptures and encourage family and friends to leave their babies whole and perfect, just the way God sends them into the world. Please turn your shock into advocacy….that is what I did. I advocate for babies to be left natural and encourage parents to NOT put their precious newborn through such an unnecessary and traumatic procedure.
Thank you Lord for only girls!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 10 and 14 years old.
Dear wildwahinepaddler
The first thing I did as soon i got a bit over it, was talking to my family about it. My Mom was shocked, my dad was more doubting saying “hmm… I don’t know. You shouldn’t believe what the Internet says…etc.” and another Ward Sister was more like… “Sorry, but I don’t believe that.”.
Basically, because this is a Topic that isn’t discussed in Church or in private, it’s NON EXISTEND.
The way I see it, is we members of the Church in Europe look to much up to Salt Lake or actually “American Church Culture” to believe there could be any errors in it.
Sure, some joke about some US Members who don’t drink Tea and “small” things like that. On the other side we as Europeans are labeled sometimes as “non believers”, “way too liberal” or as “less valiant” from the US Member side.
But now concerning something awful like circumcision, they find it “unreal”. I still have to find someone here who knows about that whole matter or is willing to accept it.
“…we can do as members of the LDS church, is to continue to bring attention to the scriptures and encourage family and friends to leave their babies whole and perfect, just the way God sends them into the world. Please turn your shock into advocacy….”
That’s what going to do. 🙂
Great!!!!!!:)
“Basically, because this is a Topic that isn’t discussed in Church or in private, it’s NON EXISTEND.”
Further, circumcision is not really discussed in any church. I see this evident when googling every faith’s take on “every wit whole”. They ALL do not see this meaning Jesus made the Jewish man’s body COMPLETELY WHOLE. Yes, Jesus restore the man’s foreskin. This is what angered them most!
You are right Frank. It only seems non existent because it is NOT openly discussed or debated within the church. It exists alright, and members of the church are not listening to the scriptures which say circumcision is “done away in me”….. done means finished, away means gone. Circumcision should NOT be practiced in the Mormon faith and anyone who ignores this is not following the scriptures they have right in front of them. Some think this is a “free will” issue, and they are right, except it’s not the free will of the parents that is in question, it’s the denial of that free will to the child. They are basically robbing him of the right to have his own body and the free will to make decisions about it in the future.
There is also a risk that the organ can be cut off (it has happend) and then you have boy child that looks like a girl. Think about how different the kid would feel then.
That is very true….it DOES happen! And horrible to have something like that happen to an otherwise healthy infant who needed NO cosmetic surgery in the first place. In this case, this unfortunate child would now have to have multiple plastic surgeries, and even then most likely they would not have normal sexual function as an adult. It’s so unnecessary and ridiculous to take such chances!
So — if you’ve read this post and all of its comments and are still wondering if you should be pro or anti circumcision — just consult this decision flow-chart:
Circumcision Decision Made Easy
Excellent flow chart! By the way, there is a new FB page called “Intact Mormon Network”…. which is being run by some really great people for anyone who might be interested.
I went to look over that Facebook page and followed some of the links. It seems to me that if LDS (or even non-LDS) members who are against circumcision really want to get the leadership to address the issue, they ought to just organize a letter writing campaign. Perhaps some Intactivist can write up a one-page, concise explanation of why the leadership needs to speak out against circumcision, citing the scriptures as well as secular findings, the ignorance of the general membership concerning this issue, with a petition for the leadership to address it, etc., and produce a .pdf file that people can print out and mail to a specific address at church headquarters. Perhaps the .pdf file could contain a second page with the address and instructions on how to mail it using only 2 cents. All people would have to do is print out the document, sign it, adding whatever comments they’d like to add on the other side of it, put it in an envelope, seal it, address it and affix a 2-cent stamp, then drop it in the mail box, all per the instructions that come with the document. Intactivists could send the pdf. file through email to all the people on their list and these people could then decide whether they want to participate in the letter campaign. The pdf. file would have a dual purpose: informing those on the email lists, as well as informing the church leadership about this issue.
I think such a letter campaign, with a ton of letters coming from many different people, all concerning the same issue, would be much more effective than a single letter sent with a ton of signatures attached to it.
The document itself could also contain web site addresses to go to where more information could be learned about the effects of circumcision. Even if the leadership does not end up responding, many people would still become educated by the file. But, based upon what I have heard, even a small number (such as a few dozen) of letters from concerned latter-day saints about a particular issue gets the leadership’s attention.
I would like to see such a letter writing campaign. But we probably will not see such a thing.
Why?
Because implicit in the “follow the brethren they will never lead us astray” mentality is the axiom followed by the lower leaders say from 70’s on down to home teacher. Since our leaders are inspired of God it is tantamount to accusing them of not being inspired to suggest they look into something. And if I do suggest something it will hurt my chances of advancement.
Is that a jaded outlook? You could call it that.
But if you are a member of a council and suggest a change which must be carried out by the next level above your council the president of that council will surely face the reality of giving himself a bad reputation for making waves. The higher ups have already and contniually give him more to do than he can ever complete. So if he asks them to consider something he is truly justified in the possibility or rather the likely event that they will say, “Uh Hey didn’t we ask you to increase your ward’s Sacrament meeting attendance by 20%? You know when you get that goal done and the other three tasks we gave you then we can talk about you telling us what we should be doing. Sound good?”
And letters from individuals to the council of the twelve will elicit a response in the form of a letter to be read in sacrament meeting from the first presidency telling everyone for the hundredth time to go through your local leaders, bishops and branch presidents for questions or concerns.
And those lowest leaders are the least likely to pass anything up the line.
And as if that were not enough those at the top have not had a personal witness of Jesus Christ. They are not in possession of the true love of Christ nor truly lead by the spirit if they were they would not be saying and doing the things they are and they would be saying and doing the things they are not.
It came to me very clearly today so I might as well express it here.
1. The Book of Mormon and the Bible repeatedly tell of the fall of Babylon and how great will be that fall.
2. The Book of Mormon blatantly tells of the fall and destruction of the mighty gentile nation or the USA.
3. Many people are seeing signs of this coming destruction, for crying out loud the Chinese government came out last week and said they have a plan in place for defeating the US in the Pacific, and all students of war and tactics and history have seen plainly that the US has such natural defense because it is isolated by the oceans that no foreign power could invade it that they would need to have their troops already in the US in order to win. Well there are 4 nations with large armies all of which military bases in the 48 states already. Hello is anyone out there awake?
4. Howard Storm had a near death experience in 1985 in which he was told unless the US repented asap they would end up being destroyed. And that there would be a depression like they have never seen before. That Americans would be killing each other over a cup of gas. (just type Howard Storm NDE and you’ll find it) Are we not seeing the event unfolding before our eyes which are already happening to lead to this in the next two to 3 years?
And yet the brethren say “Just pay your tithing and you’ll be okay”
They are false prophets.
Amen to this last comment.The two cent letter campaign does not seem very Christ-like…since anytime that Christ dealt with the established church it was to call to repentence and have the leaders so angry with Him that they wanted to kill Him before His time. He was not about wasting time playing the devil’s game. We have worshiped satan for long enough…why not try something different and follow Jesus commandment to go unto the church leaders and if youre giong to do that in a letter campaign…well then the letters should start of with the line “Thou hypocrites!” Why even advocate this type of thing…aren’t we supposed to preach nothing but repentence unto our generation?
headline on yahoo today: “German court rules religious circumcision on boys an assault”
http://news.yahoo.com/german-court-outlaws-religious-circumcision-172728400.html
Hallelujah!!!! They are getting slammed with religious freedom complaints. I sure hope it does not get overturned because this could have a huge impact on the US.A. It’s high time the world acknowledges this barbaric practice and ends it once and for all.
I’m confused…I’m a 5th generation LDS/Mormon and there are currently 300+ males (alive) in my family and not a one is circumcised. Likewise I know over 2,500 male Mormons locally, and I also know that they are all against circumcision, likewise I know all the leaders in the 5 local Wards, all teach against circumcision…so I am confused by your saying the Church teaches or practices it. Are you talking about the Salt Lake Church (Latter Day Saints, founded by Brigham Young) or the Missouri Church (Community of Christ, founded by Joesph Smith) – the only 2 Mormon Church groups legal recognized by the federal government and both of which strict forbid circumcision – or are you talking about one of the other 16 branches (Rigdonites, Fundamentalists, Reorganized, etc) some of which do teach circumcision (as well as other things such as polygamy, and stock piling guns – both illegal) and none of which are legally operating as 501 government recognized religions? Please note that just as there are many branches of Catholics, Christian, and Protestant religions, so to are there many branches of the Mormon religion and not all of them follow the authentic teachings of the legally/federally recognized church headquarters. I mention this, because I wish to point out that if you are in fact referencing Wards of the actual LDS (Salt lake) church, than you must come to realize that your local leaders are teaching circumcision AGAINST official church authorization, and should be reported to church headquarters IMMEDIATELY, because circumcision of your sons is punishable by EXCOMMUNICATION as it is thought of and taught to be a grave sin. You might want to seriously question any so called LDS leader who says otherwise.
You’re right EelKat….you are confused.
well, I have never heard of there being all those sects of Mormons….legally sanctioned or not…..but you are right about one thing, it definitely says that circumcision is done away in the Book of Mormon (Moroni 8:8). It’s good to know that there are so many LDS men who are not circumcised and are against it too. What does make sense is that members of the Mormon church should not be surgically altering their innocent newborns genitals….since that does go against the teaching that the body is like a temple and clearly goes against the word of wisdom. My parents believed that ear piercing was in the same category (or any body piercings or tattoos…).
circumcision will not stop aids,this was based on reasearch made with flawed facts,and indeed is very silly. if you think the aids virus will not infect a male based on if he has or has no foreskin .well i have a bridge to sell you .and some great swampland deals for you as well.
Exactly!!!!!!! well said!
AND I’ve got an island for you…………ha ha ha….
Lol
Is there more about circumcision in the book of mormon? Or any other church documents ?
Tons of circumcision resources at this link for someone interested to read.
this guy ^^ those are some great links
“every wit whole” Jesus mad made the man all whole again with foreskin too. Boy were they pissed. Welcome to read my circumcision refs. at Frank McGinness 7 facebook page under “Notes”.
you know I cant say exactly how i stumbled onto this link about circumcision. perhaps ironically enough after a porn binge. I also have to say i am a bit appalled now knowing all this. I know my parents didnt do this out of some malice or evil intention. quite frankly my parents are the most honest people i know. they really do give it an A++++++ effort when it comes to trying to follow The Lord. I would however be lying if I said they were perfect and that their eyes are more open than mine.
I can understand their feelings though as they are 70 and the prospect that the all mighty church has gone astray is a frightening one. that said at their core level I dont think they have an alliance with the church they do in fact put Christ first.
so Im not mad at them because i really do think they made their best effort….but I am quite mad now that i know all this that it did indeed happen. to be honest I had never looked up a circumcised penis before probably because it never dawned on me that my penis doesnt look like it naturally should. yes the obvious scar on it should be a clue but quite frankly unless you look up a ton of penises it really wouldnt dawn on you what circumcision really is because it looks normal. but I now see how deformed it really is. how abnormal it really is.
I also have to agree Im not sure the all knowing God would create us in His perfect image yet somehow give us a useless piece of skin on the sex organ which is the closest thing we have to God’s power of creation which I would argue is His greatest power.
So I would be inclined to agree that Gods definition of circumcision and our definition are likely two different things. I think i agree with the it was just some kind of mark that healed but didnt rip apart the foreskin. probably no different than a cut on your hand that heals.
I can safely say that whoever I marry has no say in this discussion….all males we have will be left alone. their will be no infant gentile mutilation. my penis might be ruined but my children’s wont I can do that at the very least.
I also have to say their have been some very interesting ideas put forth in these comments. I especially find the porn addiction part interesting. It could true and it does have some logic to it. that porn is more appealing because men with a deformed penis cannot achieve full physical satisfaction so we seek out mental satisfaction in the form of porn. this might also be why men constantly seek out new porn and are never really satisfied. I also found the reason women might rarely orgasm to be interesting….that perhaps they cant without the male penis foreskin.
I also cant fathom why I never considered this gential mutilation yet am appalled at female gential mutilation. I know only a couple of years ago a teacher(a female teacher at that) compared the too but I ignored it because she was a crazy Obama is great supporter so I mostly disregarded 99% of what she said.
you know I had to come back and comment again. I finally decided to watch a video of infant circumcision. holy ****. seriously holy ****. Im a guy that has felt the severe pain of a damned soul and even I found that video gut wrenching. I think that crime is probably only a couple of steps above denial of the Holy Ghost.
seriously I am most certainly a lot more pissed off about it. thats high treason. and in the eyes of the new born baby boy that is most certainly the highest of all treasons.
I am appalled and actually stumped as to how my parents who are other very good God fearing people could have allowed this to happen to not one but two sons?
I really am speechless. you can ask anyone that knows me and they will tell you I very rarely screech in horror at anything….but this I was screaming at the screen in horror. if anyone that knows me saw me watch that video they’d be shocked just based on my reactions alone.
Wow, Tachikoma, you have much stronger nerves than I do. I cannot bear even the thought of a circumcision procedure, let alone seek out a video of one to witness the actual amputation. Yet I have a relative who has participated in the very operation, as a nurse, several times, without batting an eye about it…
Wow…… When people finally pay attention to the reality if genital cutting ….. Gender makes no difference. I’m so glad that one more persons eyes have been opened! Chances are your parents were misinformed too and just did what they thought was best. Here is your opportunity to inform your parents and anyone else you know about the grim reality of genital mutilation. The more you know…. The more you are against infant circumcision!
Why in the world would peopel cut parts of children? It is just sick and twisted.
When I was serving my mission, I realized that most americans are circumsized. Beeing european, I was shoked too !
It seems that the american culture/habits in general is often stronger that the doctrine of our Lord. Capitalism, consumerism, environment, politics, gun policy, war policy etc.
I believe we should put off the natural man meaning everything that we have learned, our habits, our way of thinking and put on clothings of light.
my parents were yes clearly misinformed….Ive already yelled at them about them and told them they need to repent of this sin. their reactions were a bit shocking. my dad really just couldnt accept “the law of circumcision hath been done away” really did mean ITS BEEN DONE AWAY. my mom kept trying to not have me hold a grudge against her when truthfully this trauma explains why Ive always had an unspeakable grudge against her. it really has been an answer to a life long question. they also had a hard time hearing that Gods circumcision and todays circumcision are two entirely different things. it took two hours of silence, yelling, talking, and an intermission but I think the point finally broke through somewhat at least. really I can understand it I dont think my dad wanted to hear that at 71 and having had 5 children that his sex life was on its best days a C- and with foreskin it is an A+ on its worst days. I dont think he enjoyed hearing that comment but it needed to be said. I also dont think my mom enjoyed that either knowing she missed out on real sex either lol.
Ill be speaking with my sister who is due to have a son in a couple of months and explaining spiritually and scientifically why this is wrong so at least one my nephews can be spared this trauma. I should be able to spare this child Im pretty optimistic going forward here.
Ive spent a great deal of time the past two weeks looking up the subject and it really just keeps getting worse. it really is pandoras box.
really what got me was watching that video I could just see myself there. It really is heartbreaking and that scream that poor child lets out right as the final cut is made. it really is Solemn Mockery of God.
for any mutilated men there is a great site Im seriously looking into called http://www.restoringforeskin.org/ it takes a long time and dedication but from what i can tell people are gradually getting their foreskin back somewhat. it wont give you back your 20,000 lost nerves but its a wonderful start.
I admit I am saddened also at the lack of faith in the world that the priesthood cant be used en large to heal us and make us whole. I admit I have an increasing desire now to really master the art of healing the priesthood has. Ive used it for a few miracles before but I’d like to get consistent with it. So I might be screwed but others dont have to be.
learning about this really did change me.
I’m glad you had “the talk” with your parents. These things are not easy to hear but maybe you have planted a seed in their minds and they will come around. The more you know about infant circumcision the worse it gets ….. And the more you are against it. I pray you will reach your sister and save your nephew. I’ll be praying for that.
Thanks. Im sure the unborn nephew appreciates the prayers.
I feel pretty good going into that conversation this week. Im the only sibling she doesnt hate so that should help and if need be Ill show a video and pictures. Im going all out with this.
it really is true few topics are like circumcision in that they just always get worse.
I should also add I am sure The Lord is pleased others are praying for his unborn male children’s safety.
Good for you!!!!!!!
well I talked to my sister. She seemed to have done the science half of the research so hopefully the scripture half of the research I provided for her will seal the deal as well as some personal statements about how it’s affected me.
You should like our page. Intact Mormon Network
I googled that….Im guessing you mean a facebook page?
my nephew was born….she left the child’s penis alone. So I thank you for all the prayers and Im sure the baby does and The Lord both do too.
Im not sure I’ve ever had such joy seeing an infant penis before
That’s wonderful news!!!!! Good for you…… And good for your sister! Your nephew is one very lucky boy!
Congrats, Tachikoma! I’m very glad to hear that news!
this is why the practice is widespread and pushed for, people are turning a profit off the foreskin remnants
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-cut-above-the-rest-wrin/
In one of the above comments (or in a comment on another post), I gave my opinion that the original circumcision approved by the Lord was not an amputation, but merely a cut that left a scar. The Joseph Smith Translation of Exodus chapter 4 alters the text significantly, allowing this interpretation. Here is what our KJV says:
And here is what the JST says:
One indicates an amputation of the foreskin, while the other does not.
(If I have already put this information up somewhere on this blog, sorry for the repeat. It is getting difficult to remember exactly what information I published on the blog, and what information has been kept as a private teaching, but I think I’ve never given the above publicly here, though I intended to in the past, but never got around to it. So, now that I remember it again, up it goes.)
Circumcision, Serial Killing, Criminal Behavior and American Medical Violence.
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/august312012/circumcision-violence-rm.php
I’m from the UK. We don’t do circumcision here. Might be something to do with being a more secular state. It seems kind of crazy to me that LDS Americans do it. The doctors make money from it I presume?
Yes Julian they do.
its an easy 500 or dollars. the Jews who do it aka Mohels get to make money as poor Mohels doing “God’s work” or so they say.
furthermore the foreskins are not trashed, rather they go into anti aging creams(if memory serves right Oprah’s cream is one of them specifically) so in all reality it is a billions of dollars a year industry.
and what has to be the universes biggest F-U to vain parents that allow this to happen….they get to rub infant penis all over their faces.
in short….let the boy keep what is his and stop buying anti aging creams.