Circumcision

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

It would certainly be a better outcome for the children involved -- avoiding the damage to function -- but this is still not ideal. By the way, I also am 100% in support of laws banning the stoning of people for idolatry or blasphemy. Does it bother you that we have laws that go against the Old Testament on those counts?

I don't think you are understanding my question (i probably worded it weirdly).  I'm not trying to argue that because it was o.k. in the bible it should be o.k. now.  What I'm asking is how you square your belief that foreskin removal (partial or full) is wrong for any reason, with the teaching that God once commanded it.

Do you believe that it was wrong for God to command it, or do you believe that God never actually commanded it and that the bible is wrong where it says He did?

As for the other stuff, it's hard to take the conversation with you seriously when you keep referring to those of us who have personally known people who have had to be circumcised later in life as making the choice for "cultural and "health" (with scare quotes) justifications."   

You aren't listening, and there's no reason to try to have a conversation with someone who's not listening.  Probably better to just agree to disagree on the other stuff.

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't think you are understanding my question (i probably worded it weirdly).  I'm not trying to argue that because it was o.k. in the bible it should be o.k. now.  What I'm asking is how you square your belief that foreskin removal (partial or full) is wrong for any reason, with the teaching that God once commanded it.

I'm sorry. I also don't mean to be unclear!

I literally 'square my belief' regarding (what was original) circumcision in the exact same way that I square my belief that it is wrong for people to stone blasphemers to death with the fact that God seems to have once commanded that too. Does that make sense? 

Quote

As for the other stuff, it's hard to take the conversation with you seriously when you keep referring to those of us who have personally known people who have had to be circumcised later in life as making the choice for "cultural and "health" (with scare quotes) justifications." 

And yet circumcision later in life for supposed health reasons is still culturally informed: i.e., it only happens in places where circumcision is culturally acceptable. I actually checked with our RS president, who is a medical doctor. She said that no, circumcision is not used as a treatment here for any medical issues later in life.

Phimosis? She said that's incredibly rare here since it's primarily caused by people ripping boys' foreskins back before they've detached from the glans. But even if/when it occurs, the treatment is a cream that relaxes the tissue and some stretching.

Infection? She said that yes, this sometimes happens. The treatment: antibiotic ointments, the same as one would use for any other skin infection. And so forth.

Do you see how the fear of someone needing a circumcision later in life is actually culturally determined? Barring the possibility of a very localised cancer, there is no medical condition that requires circumcision for treatment. As a consequence, societies that don't circumcise don't see circumcision as a medical treatment and don't apply it as such. On the other hand, societies that do circumcise are preconditioned to see the practice as a possible medical treatment and therefore apply it as such even when alternative (and less radical) treatments are available. 

Quote

You aren't listening, and there's no reason to try to have a conversation with someone who's not listening.  Probably better to just agree to disagree on the other stuff.

I'm certainly trying to listen. I fear the frustration you've expressed above is mutual, but I'm happy to apologise for failing you.

Edited November 20, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I'm sorry. I also don't mean to be unclear!

I literally 'square my belief' regarding (what was original) circumcision in the exact same way that I square my belief that it is wrong for people to stone blasphemers to death with the fact that God seems to have once commanded that too. Does that make sense? 

So if i'm understanding you right, you believe that partial circumcision is acceptable under certain conditions.   Thanks for clarifying.  

 

Edited November 21, 2017 by bluebell

[Hamba Tuhan]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So if i'm understanding you right, you believe that partial circumcision is acceptable under certain conditions.   Thanks for clarifying.  

Essentially, whatever God commands is right, and it is His prerogative to decide what works for a particular people in a a particular time and place. I think Joseph Smith taught this clearly on a number of occasions, including in relation to plural marriage.

The nature of Biblical circumcision is such that we can clearly see that its purpose, as stated, was to mark or brand men. None of 20th-century America's health claims would have applied as an Israelite man retained his entire foreskin minus the pucker at the very end. (When Americans insist on referring to circumcision as the removal of a 'tiny flap' of skin, this would have actually been close to the case pre-second century AD, whereas what is removed in current circumcision practices amounts to, in the average adult male, 100 square centimetres of flesh, half of it erogenous.)

I'll freely admit that I'm not comfortable with parents having the right to permanently mark or brand the flesh of their children. We have an older sister in our ward who, as a child, was forcibly tattooed on her forearms by her mother. She hates these tattoos and the violation of agency and bodily integrity that they represent to her. I know that she would agree with this point, and I strongly suspect that most Americans would agree too ... with a single exception applied only to one sex.

 

Edited November 21, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[bluebell]

14 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Essentially, whatever God commands is right,

 

I agree.  And to me, the fact that God would ever condone (and even command) circumcision means that it is not inherently unethical.  

[3DOP]

On 11/21/2017 at 8:23 AM, bluebell said:

I agree.  And to me, the fact that God would ever condone (and even command) circumcision means that it is not inherently unethical.  

Hamba...you and bluebell are both among my faves in these parts. But I have to agree with the bell this time. She holds that there are some things that are "inherently unethical", that God could never correctly command. Circumcision is certainly not one of those. That seems to indicate that parents should have the freedom to wrestle with the question based not on inherent morality, but other factors, such as perceived health benefits. It seems like it could be argued that circumcision is a health mistake, like when my mother fed me formula in the 50's instead of breast milk. But I don't think it can rise to the level of violating morality.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

Hamba...you and bluebell are both among my faves in these parts.

You are too kind, 3DOP!

[Scott Lloyd]

On 11/21/2017 at 9:23 AM, bluebell said:

I agree.  And to me, the fact that God would ever condone (and even command) circumcision means that it is not inherently unethical.  

What about the example Hamba cited? Is stoning people to death for having committed adultery inherently unethical?

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Hamba...you and bluebell are both among my faves in these parts. But I have to agree with the bell this time. She holds that there are some things that are "inherently unethical", that God could never correctly command. Circumcision is certainly not one of those. That seems to indicate that parents should have the freedom to wrestle with the question based not on inherent morality, but other factors, such as perceived health benefits. It seems like it could be argued that circumcision is a health mistake, like when my mother fed me formula in the 50's instead of breast milk. But I don't think it can rise to the level of violating morality.

If not inherently unethical, could we say a thing is provisionally unethical or situationally unethical? 

In other words, in a day and age when God doesn’t command that adulterers be stoned, could we say that it is unethical to do so? Or that in a time when God doesn’t command that newborns be circumcised, that circumcision is not ethical without informed consent?

Edited November 23, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What about the example Hamba cited? Is stoning people to death for having committed adultery inherently unethical?

If it is, then it means that God was unethical to command it.  So either we believe that God commanded something unethical or that God never actually commanded it and the Bible is inaccurate where it says He did. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If it is, then it means that God was unethical to command it.  So either we believe that God commanded something unethical or that God never actually commanded it and the Bible is inaccurate where it says He did. 

False dichotomy. 

There are things that are acceptable if commanded by God that are egregious sins otherwise. Polygamy for one. Slaying people for another. 

I’m not putting circumcision on that level. Only using those as extreme examples to illustrate my point. 

[Calm]

I believe Bluebell was dealing solely with the case where it is assumed it was always inherently unethical as indicated by the "if it is" at the beginning of her comment.

She had earlier referred to her belief that if God commands something, it is ethical if done as he commands (but not necessarily outside of his specific instructions), so I think it is careless to suggest she is committing a fallacy of false dichotomy based on the belief that if God commands, it is not a sin.

 You seemed to have lost the thread of the discussion since your question was in response to a comment where she said the same thing you did to challenge her next comment asking her if she includes stoning for adultery in that category of "ethical if God commands":

Hers:  "the fact that God would ever condone (and even command) circumcision means that it is not inherently unethical."

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69859-circumcision/?do=findComment&comment=1209774415

Yours:  "There are things that are acceptable if commanded by God that are egregious sins otherwise."

Do you see a difference?

Edited November 23, 2017 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I believe Bluebell was dealing solely with the case where it is assumed it was always inherently unethical as indicated by the "if it is" at the beginning of her comment.

She had earlier referred to her belief that if God commands something, it is ethical if done as he commands (but not necessarily outside of his specific instructions), so I think it is careless to suggest she is committing a fallacy of false dichotomy based on the belief that if God commands, it is not a sin.

 You seemed to have lost the thread of the discussion since your question was in response to a comment where she said the same thing you did to challenge her next comment asking her if she includes stoning for adultery in that category of "ethical if God commands":

Hers:  "the fact that God would ever condone (and even command) circumcision means that it is not inherently unethical."

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69859-circumcision/?do=findComment&comment=1209774415

Yours:  "There are things that are acceptable if commanded by God that are egregious sins otherwise."

Do you see a difference?

No. 

Unless you mean what I said to 3DOP a few posts ago where I drew a distinction between inherently unethical and provisionally unethical. 

We can’t say a thing is perfectly acceptable today just because it seems that God at some point in ancient history seemed to be OK with it. Otherwise, we run unto the problem of the example Hamba cited — of stoning a person to death for blasphemy. 

Edited November 24, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

59 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No. 

Then why did you say Bluebell was creating a false dichotomy?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Then why did you say Bluebell was creating a false dichotomy?

Because she allowed only two choices: Either that God was unethical to command it or it is not true that he did command it. 

That is by definition a false dichotomy, because there is at least one other choice. That choice is that God indeed commanded it without being unethical in doing so (whatever God commands is right), but absent His specific command or approval, it is ethically questionable because it is undertaken without informed consent. 

Do you believe stoning someone to death for blasphemy is acceptable today, even though the Law of Moses has ended, because it seems God at one time decreed it? That seems to be the logically consistent conclusion from your reasoning. 

Edited November 24, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

 You are not correctly representing my argument or bluebell's (see above) so I will not be responding to your question...at least until you do.  I will again point you to the premise that Bluebell starts from for her two options "if it is [inherently unethical], then it means..."  She and Hamba had previously covered the option of "when God commands, something otherwise unethical is ethical".  She has covered all three options, not just two.

Edited November 24, 2017 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

 You are not correctly representing my argument or bluebell's (see above) so I will not be responding to your question...at least until you do.  I will again point you to the premise that Bluebell starts from for her two options "if it is [inherently unethical], then it means..."  She and Hamba had previously covered the option of "when God commands, something otherwise unethical is ethical".  She has covered all three options, not just two.

If I’m not correctly representing your argument, it’s because I’m not understanding it, not because I’m intentionally being argumentative.  And at this point I’m ready to give up trying. 

Edited November 24, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Rain]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

 You are not correctly representing my argument or bluebell's (see above) so I will not be responding to your question...at least until you do.  I will again point you to the premise that Bluebell starts from for her two options "if it is [inherently unethical], then it means..."  She and Hamba had previously covered the option of "when God commands, something otherwise unethical is ethical".  She has covered all three options, not just two.

Right. As you say, it all hangs on "If it is, then". 

If inherently evil

1. God never commanded it

Or

2. God comanded something inherently evil

If not inherently evil then

3. It is ok when God commands

That leaves the question of

4. Is it ok when God doesn't comanded it?

By limiting it to it being inherently evil in that one post then it must be 1 or 2 If you don't limit it then you can add in 3 or 4. 

Edited November 24, 2017 by Rain

[bluebell]

20 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

False dichotomy. 

There are things that are acceptable if commanded by God that are egregious sins otherwise. Polygamy for one. Slaying people for another. 

I’m not putting circumcision on that level. Only using those as extreme examples to illustrate my point. 

There is no false dichotomy once you take into account the definition of inherently. 

If something is ever (for any reason) acceptable to God, that means it cannot be inherently unethical. 

Something can be o.k. under some circumstances and not o.k. under others, but if that is the case that thing is not inherently unethical.

Polygamy and stoning, for example, are not inherently unethical (even though they are sometimes unethical) because the are sometimes condoned by God.

[bluebell]

13 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Because she allowed only two choices: Either that God was unethical to command it or it is not true that he did command it. 

You aren’t taking into account the parameters of the discussion and that’s why you are wrong to call it a false dichotomy.

The discussion is about the question of inherent ethics. 

[3DOP]

On 11/22/2017 at 8:15 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

 

We have used the expression "inherently" which seems synonymous to another word, "intrinsically", which is used in an article about capital punishment that vividly illustrates the question we are discussing in regards to circumcision. Some Catholics, perhaps including the current pope, hold that capital punishment is intrinsically (inherently) evil. I think everyone (regarding the capital punishment question) agrees that capital punishment might be provisionally improper (to use a little bit of Scott's lingo, and a little of my own). Nobody says that capital punishment is always necessary for certain crimes. But this reasonable concession has been used to argue that a provisional observance of capital punishment is always and everywhere improper.

Obviously, it is important to distinguish between that which is inherently evil, and that which might sometimes be permissible (provisional). Circumcision pales a little in importance to capital punishment in this discussion. But the arguments seem similar. Both capital punishment and circumcision are sometimes permissible. Children cannot decide whether to be immunized or circumcised. Parents must do their best according to the lights they are given. We may have strong and differing opinions on what is best. But it seems difficult to claim inherent or intrinsic immorality of parents on either side. Let us allow that parents can make mistakes without accusing them of sin on such subjects. John Paul II argued that capital punishment is unnecessary in an era when incarceration for the protection of society is practical. I disagree with his limited view of the value of capital punishment, but I cite him as on my side because he agrees that capital punishment is not inherently immoral. He refrains from saying that capital punishment is always wrong.

Anyway...an article that I found to be involved with the same questions about situational and provisional morality as opposed to actions which are absolutely and always (intrinsically or inherently) wrong is this one: http://www.catholicworldreport.com/2017/11/21/yes-traditional-church-teaching-on-capital-punishment-is-definitive/

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, 3DOP said:

But it seems difficult to claim inherent or intrinsic immorality of parents on either side. Let us allow that parents can make mistakes without accusing them of sin on such subjects. 

I don’t advocate such accusation. 

Fully 90 percent of parents in the milieu and time of my childhood had their newborn boys circumcised. It was the accepted thing to do. Scarcely anyone gave it a second thought. 

Do I now accuse all those parents of immorality now that I view the practice as ethically questionable? That would be manifestly unjust. They were doing what they trusted was right and proper. 

Do I think they were generally misguided? In all candor, I would have to say yes. 

Edited November 25, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[3DOP]

12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t advocate such accusation. 

Fully 90 percent of parents in the milieu and time of my childhood had their newborn boys circumcised. It was the accepted thing to do. Scarcely anyone gave it a second thought. 

Do I now accuse all those parents of immorality now that I view the practice as ethically questionable? That would be manifestly unjust. They were doing what they trusted was right and proper. 

Do I think they were generally misguided? In all candor, I would have to say yes. 

Hi Scott.

If you agree that it was not sinful, but only misguided for our parent's generation to circumcise their boys, we agree about the main point. We probably disagree about the authority God gives parents to make decisions like this for the children. I would use this opportunity to express my opinion that Christian parents in our age should be less concerned about the freedom of their children and more concerned about the needs and even rights of children to be reared in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. I don't care much about circumcision except as it relates to more important questions about parental authority.  

Circumcision is interesting to me because it is the basis for the value of infant baptism. There is a strong bias in American and Evangelical traditions against attaching any significance to religious acts performed on behalf of infants by the parents. But in the ancient practice passed down from Abraham, circumcision was necessary for the male child lest he be "cut off" as a covenant breaker. (Gen 17:14) 

In Col. 2:10-12 there is an interesting connection between baptism and circumcision: 

"And you are filled in him, who is the head of all principality and power: In whom also you are circumcised with circumcision not made by hand, in despoiling of the body of the flesh, but in the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, in whom also you are risen again by the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him up from the dead."

There is a "circumcision made by hand" and there is a "circumcision of Christ" in this text. I would propose that the baptism that St. Paul subsequently describes is the circumcision of Christ. Mormons have Latter-day revelation which explicitly condemns infant baptism. But there is no such condemnation in the New Testament. Instead, as far as the Scriptures go, we have the precedent of a ceremony for the male child in the Old Testament and a circumcision of Christ for females as well in the New Testament. On what basis should Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, and Presbyterians decide that the infant be allowed to grow up in the family and decide for itself whether he or she wants to be a Christian? 

Of course, Catholics and Orthodox look to another source of revelation besides Scripture. Sacred Tradition becomes another witness to Sacred Scripture when it can be established that a particular belief or practice stems from the Apostolic teaching. The first mention of the practice of infant baptism occurs when the future apostate, Tertullian, took issue against it. This would be in the late 2nd or early 3rd Century. His reasoning was based on the Montanist heresy, which he adopted in his later years. It taught that once a Christian falls from grace, there is no remedy. Tertullian's opposition to infant baptism makes no mention of its being a novel practice, but rather because "If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation." (On Baptism, ch. 18)

The important point to note is that this book which is usually ascribed to his pre-Montanist days was very likely written less than a hundred years before the death of the last Apostle. If the practice of infant baptism had been a novelty of recent origin for Tertullian, there seems little doubt he would also have opposed it upon that basis. But by drifting towards the Montanist heresy, which in its rigor denied the possibility of repentance after a fall, he naturally exaggerates the Apostolic teaching which insists that baptism be deferred from given to infants when there are neither sponsors (godparents) nor faithful parents to give a reasonable assurance that the child will be instructed in the faith.

For the reasons then of both Scripture and Tradition, Catholics and Orthodox practice infant baptism, while on the basis of Scripture only, most Protestants apply the circumcision of Christ to infants.

----------------------------------------

In our day, one often hears unbelieving parents confidently affirm how they want to let their children decide for themselves about religion. I would ask that if Christian parents should avoid deciding for their children whether to be circumcised or not, so as to assure a free choice later, why should the parents be permitted to interfere with their freedom by advocating as true, any particular religious claims? If anything, it seems like the latter is of more weighty importance than the former.  

Rory

 

 

Quote

 

              

Edited November 25, 2017 by 3DOP

[Scott Lloyd]

20 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Hi Scott.

If you agree that it was not sinful, but only misguided for our parent's generation to circumcise their boys, we agree about the main point. We probably disagree about the authority God gives parents to make decisions like this for the children. I would use this opportunity to express my opinion that Christian parents in our age should be less concerned about the freedom of their children and more concerned about the needs and even rights of children to be reared in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. I don't care much about circumcision except as it relates to more important questions about parental authority.  

Circumcision is interesting to me because it is the basis for the value of infant baptism. There is a strong bias in American and Evangelical traditions against attaching any significance to religious acts performed on behalf of infants by the parents. But in the ancient practice passed down from Abraham, circumcision was necessary for the male child lest he be "cut off" as a covenant breaker. (Gen 17:14) 

In Col. 2:10-12 there is an interesting connection between baptism and circumcision: 

"And you are filled in him, who is the head of all principality and power: In whom also you are circumcised with circumcision not made by hand, in despoiling of the body of the flesh, but in the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, in whom also you are risen again by the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him up from the dead."

There is a "circumcision made by hand" and there is a "circumcision of Christ" in this text. I would propose that the baptism that St. Paul subsequently describes is the circumcision of Christ. Mormons have Latter-day revelation which explicitly condemns infant baptism. But there is no such condemnation in the New Testament. Instead, as far as the Scriptures go, we have the precedent of a ceremony for the male child in the Old Testament and a circumcision of Christ for females as well in the New Testament. On what basis should Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, and Presbyterians decide that the infant be allowed to grow up in the family and decide for itself whether he or she wants to be a Christian? 

Of course, Catholics and Orthodox look to another source of revelation besides Scripture. Sacred Tradition becomes another witness to Sacred Scripture when it can be established that a particular belief or practice stems from the Apostolic teaching. The first mention of the practice of infant baptism occurs when the future apostate, Tertullian, took issue against it. This would be in the late 2nd or early 3rd Century. His reasoning was based on the Montanist heresy, which he adopted in his later years. It taught that once a Christian falls from grace, there is no remedy. Tertullian's opposition to infant baptism makes no mention of its being a novel practice, but rather because "If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation." (On Baptism, ch. 18)

The important point to note is that this book which is usually ascribed to his pre-Montanist days was very likely written less than a hundred years before the death of the last Apostle. If the practice of infant baptism had been a novelty of recent origin for Tertullian, there seems little doubt he would also have opposed it upon that basis. But by drifting towards the Montanist heresy, which in its rigor denied the possibility of repentance after a fall, he naturally exaggerates the Apostolic teaching which insists that baptism be deferred from given to infants when there are neither sponsors (godparents) nor faithful parents to give a reasonable assurance that the child will be instructed in the faith.

For the reasons then of both Scripture and Tradition, Catholics and Orthodox practice infant baptism, while on the basis of Scripture only, most Protestants apply the circumcision of Christ to infants.

----------------------------------------

In our day, one often hears unbelieving parents confidently affirm how they want to let their children decide for themselves about religion. I would ask that if Christian parents should avoid deciding for their children whether to be circumcised or not, so as to assure a free choice later, why should the parents be permitted to interfere with their freedom by advocating as true, any particular religious claims? If anything, it seems like the latter is of more weighty importance than the former.  

Rory

 

 

              

I agree with you, Rory, about the concept of parental authority but fail to see it’s connection with circumcision. A misguided choice is a misguided choice even when made with parental authority. I’m sure you will readily agree with me that parental authority does not have absolute supremacy over all of a child’s rights. The right to have basic survival needs met comes to mind. So does the right not to be abused in any way, be it physical, sexual or emotional.

I appreciate your doctrinal explanation. 

Of course, in view of the LDS position, which I have explained as best I understand it, for me circumcision has no doctrinal significance or application today and has not had since the coming of Christ and the fulfilling of the law in Him. 

The reasons most often given today, especially by members of my own faith, are claims of health or hygienic benefits (which strike me as highly dubious) and, for want of a better term, aesthetic preference. Both seem to me to warrant waiting until the boy is old enough to choose for himself. 

And to address your comparison, unlike circumcision, raising a child to believe in and embrace the religious faith of his parents is not an irrevocable act. The child is free to choose a different path later. 

Edited November 26, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

On 11/24/2017 at 8:40 AM, bluebell said:

There is no false dichotomy once you take into account the definition of inherently. 

If something is ever (for any reason) acceptable to God, that means it cannot be inherently unethical. 

Something can be o.k. under some circumstances and not o.k. under others, but if that is the case that thing is not inherently unethical.

Polygamy and stoning, for example, are not inherently unethical (even though they are sometimes unethical) because the are sometimes condoned by God.

That is why I suggested substituting the phrase “provisionally unethical.” Perhaps you missed the post wherein I did that.