Circumcision's Purpose

[krose]

The topic of elective circumcision, like that of spanking, can quickly become very emotional. It's understandable. We parents get very defensive when any suggestion is made that we may have harmed our children by our actions. Most of us are already so paranoid that we haven't done everything as well as we could have for our children.

I'm strongly opposed to the practice, but I understand the reactions of those who feel compelled to defend it. As I say, it probably feels like a personal judgement of a parent's fitness.

[LDSBruin]

they likely endorse abortion too.

Are we discussing the moral reprehensibleness of circumcision or the scientific value of it? If you want to claim that California is not a moral authority, I'll concede. If you want to say they are not medically qualified to evaluate a surgical procedure, I object.

I honestly don't care either way about circumcision, but the fact that a medical board says it's an "effective public health measure" at least gives me something to consider.

[karl61]

Are we discussing the moral reprehensibleness of circumcision or the scientific value of it? If you want to claim that California is not a moral authority, I'll concede. If you want to say they are not medically qualified to evaluate a surgical procedure, I object.

I honestly don't care either way about circumcision, but the fact that a medical board says it's an "effective public health measure" at least gives me something to consider.

maybe to them abortion is just a "surgical procedure" and a part of "public health"

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_cour...mer.ami.cma.pdf

[USU78]

Do a word-study on the Hebrew term "to cut a covenant" --- there are some fascinating linguistic inter-connection here, with animal sacrifice, the sacrificial meal taken by both sides when an ANE covenant was made, with the killing of the firstborn child, with passover, and with the crucifixion of "The Firstborn."

I'm very receptive to the idea that the circumcision of Isaac was a more humane alternative to the sacrifice of Isaac on the altar. It is an elegant argument (IMO) and consistent both with our own experience with the sacrifice of polygyny being replaced by a <more humane?> belief but no practice in this life and with Samuel's concern with obedience in lieu of rams' fat.

[karl61]

I'm very receptive to the idea that the circumcision of Isaac was a more humane alternative to the sacrifice of Isaac on the altar. It is an elegant argument (IMO) and consistent both with our own experience with the sacrifice of polygyny being replaced by a <more humane?> belief but no practice in this life and with Samuel's concern with obedience in lieu of rams' fat.

I understand the first sentence but the second one - I'm still looking in the sky for it.

[krose]

"California Medical Association has endorsed circumcision as an 'effective public health measure.'"

That's an interesting point made in Calmoriah's link.

Notice that there was no reference, just the statement. As a result of searching, I found another reference to the endorsement, dated 1986. Opinions have changed in the last twenty years. Searching the CMA site itself yields nothing.

Edit: Another source (historyofcircumcision.net) says the CMA recommendation was in 1988:

1988:

California Medical Association declares circumcision

"an effective public health measure" on a voice vote, at the

instigation of long-time militant circumcision advocate, Aaron Fink.

[Uncle Dale]

in lieu of rams' fat....

To obey is better than sacrifice,

I don't need your money, I want your life.

And I hear you say that I'm coming back soon,

But you act like I'll never return.

Well you speak of grace and my love so sweet,

How you thrive on milk, but reject my meat,

And I can't help weeping of how it will be,

If you keep on ignoring my words.

Well you pray to prosper and succeed,

But your flesh is something I just can't feed.

To obey is better than sacrifice.

I want more than Sunday and Wednesday nights,

Cause if you can't come to me every day,

Then don't bother coming at all.

To obey is better than sacrifice.

I want hearts of fire, not your prayers of ice.

And I'm coming quickly, to give back to you,

According to what you have done....

(Keith Green)

Yer Unk

[USU78]

I understand the first sentence but the second one - I'm still looking in the sky for it.

Let's try parsing it as I intended it:

It is an elegant argument (IMO) and consistent both:

( a ) with our own experience with

( i ) the sacrifice [made by practitioners] of polygyny being replaced by

(ii) a <more humane?> belief [in polygyny] but no practice in this life [of polygyny]; and

( b ) with Samuel's concern with

(i) obedience in lieu of

(ii) rams' fat.

Does that help?

[LDSBruin]

maybe to them abortion is just a "surgical procedure" and a part of "public health"

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_cour...mer.ami.cma.pdf

I'm not sure how California's lack of a moral compass affects their ability to address the health value of circumcision.

To make it clear, I'm not saying circumcision is morally justified by the California medical board. However, the fact that there may be health benefits is strongly supported by the fact that they endorse it.

Here's the link: http://aish.com/literacy/lifecycle/bris_mi...baric$.asp

The date is 2000, so you could very well be right about it being outdated.

[karl61]

Let's try parsing it as I intended it:

Does that help?

No - I hope you will write in a way so everyone can understand you.

[Scott Lloyd]

The African study only applies to areas where conditions are far from clean, where good hygiene is just a dream.

That's all I presented it as.

The African study is addressed and perhaps rebutted on this link:

http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html

I daresay before too long, the supposed African link between circumcision and HIV prevention will be consigned to the trash bin along with all other supposed benefits. It has been said that circumcision is a cure in search of a problem.

[selek]

It has been said that circumcision is a cure in search of a problem.

Sounds very much like anti-Mormonism- "A cure in search of a problem."

And practiced by the "uncircumcised of heart" to boot!

Back to my original question though- whether scientifically (or more specifically, medically) preferable or not, can someone cite the scripture or doctrinal statement releasing us from the requirement as part of the covenant?

[Scott Lloyd]

If by "circumcision" you mean female genital mutilation as it is commonly called, you are right. There is no comparison. Cutting off a loose piece of skin that serves no purpose and arguably causes detriment has no comparison with removing areas of the body necessary for sexual pleasure.

It is not true that the foreskin serves no purpose. This site explains the function of the foreskin:

http://www.healthcentral.com/drdean/408/9987.html

[karl61]

It is not true that the foreskin serves no purpose. This site explains the function of the foreskin:

http://www.healthcentral.com/drdean/408/9987.html

Dr Dean's my favorite doctor - very simple and easy to understand.

[LDSBruin]

It is not true that the foreskin serves no purpose. This site explains the function of the foreskin:

http://www.healthcentral.com/drdean/408/9987.html

Thanks for the links. Good points. I appreciate the information. Much more useful than emotionally charged jabs.

Just to clarify, with the "no comparison" comment I was referring to male circumcision as it commonly is vs. female "circumcision" as it is commonly done in Africa which involves much more than the foreskin equivalent. I stand corrected on the "no purpose" point, although I think it is still fair to at least say that it serves minimal purpose.

[Scott Lloyd]

What is barbaric about it? And couldn't it support evolution? We no longer need it to protect that area, so why not cut it off? It's chosen evolution.

Because it subjects a helpless infant to unnecessary pain and trauma. And it is impossible with a newborn to obtain informed consent.

Just as SlackTime has been stating, I know those who haven't had this procedure. They say it really doesn't matter and I believe them, but I know the extra work involved in cleaning, something I'd care not to do.

The "extra work" is a two-second procedure in the bath or shower that makes brushing one's teeth seem like rocket science by comparison.

[SlackTime]

Sounds very much like anti-Mormonism- "A cure in search of a problem."

And practiced by the "uncircumcised of heart" to boot!

Back to my original question though- whether scientifically (or more specifically, medically) preferable or not, can someone cite the scripture or doctrinal statement releasing us from the requirement as part of the covenant?

I believe that the official statement of the First Presidency, supported by the apostles in Quorum is found HERE!

-SlackTime

[Scott Lloyd]

I would like to see something authoritative, however to the idea that it's no longer commanded or required.

I already cited Moroni 8:8, "The law of circumcision is done away in me."

Do you reject that?

[Scott Lloyd]

I honestly don't care either way about circumcision, but the fact that a medical board says it's an "effective public health measure" at least gives me something to consider.

You have to view this against the background of the overwhelming number of medical societies and associations that do not or no longer endorse it. The most prominent, perhaps, is the American Academy of Pediatrics, which says in its most recent statement on the subject that the potential benefits are not significant enough to recommend its routine practice.

[selek]

I believe that the official statement of the First Presidency, supported by the apostles in Quorum is found HERE!

-SlackTime

Okay- I'm probably being obtuse, but bear with me.

The scriptures cited specifically denounce making circumcision a requirement for salvation (and the heaping up of new and petty rules- ie, the doctrines of men).

In short, that Gentiles are not required to become Jews in order to be Christians (the context is a conflict between those who wished to either Judaize or Hellenize the Church).

I still don't see where that releases us from taking on that particular sign of the original covenants.

For the record, I am not remotely suggesting that it's required for salvation, but I was under the impression that it was still a token and sign of the faithful (as it was originally intended to be practiced).

What am I missing (please use small words) and have we any citation or clarification that originated AFTER the invention of gunpowder?

I already cited Moroni 8:8, "The law of circumcision is done away in me."

Do you reject that?

Nope. I simply missed it.

Please don't misunderstand me- I am not arguing, I am questioning.

On boards such as these, it's often hard to tell the difference (I've made the mistake myself on an occasion or two).

Okay. I've checked out Moroni 8:8.

Since the speaker there seems somewhat authoritative, I'm not going to question any further. Answers don't get much more definitive than that!

[LDSBruin]

Here's a good page on the pros and cons:

link

The FAQs are good too.

[SlackTime]

Okay- I'm probably being obtuse, but bear with me.

The scriptures cited specifically denounce making circumcision a requirement for salvation (and the heaping up of new and petty rules- ie, the doctrines of men).

In short, that Gentiles are not required to become Jews in order to be Christians (the context is a conflict between those who wished to either Judaize or Hellenize the Church).

I still don't see where that releases us from taking on that particular sign of the original covenants.

For the record, I am not remotely suggesting that it's required for salvation, but I was under the impression that it was still a token and sign of the faithful (as it was originally intended to be practiced).

What am I missing (please use small words) and have we any citation or clarification that originated AFTER the invention of gunpowder?

Nope. I simply missed it.

Please don't misunderstand me- I am not arguing, I am questioning.

On boards such as these, it's often hard to tell the difference (I've made the mistake myself on an occasion or two).

Well, I would then refer you to Scott Lloyd's citation. It comes a few hundred years after it was declared unnecessary by Peter but it is a revelatory statement from the then presiding authority on the earth.

8 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.

-SlackTime

[selek]

Okay. I've checked out Moroni 8:8.

Since the speaker there seems somewhat authoritative, I'm not going to question any further. Answers don't get much more definitive than that!

Got it. Thank you.

[Scott Lloyd]

Here's a good page on the pros and cons:

link

The FAQs are good too.

I agree that's a pretty good site. And it has a link to the AAP's most recent statement on circumcision, the one where they say the potential benefits are not significant enough to recommend it as a routine procedure.

Incidentally, the methodology linking circumcision with prevention of urinary tract infections is flawed. See this link:

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/UTI/

[SlackTime]

I agree that's a pretty good site. And it has a link to the AAP's most recent statement on circumcision, the one where they say the potential benefits are not significant enough to recommend it as a routine procedure.

And with all that, I'm still grateful my folks circumcized me and I'm glad I did the same for my sons. I still stand by my personal experience of the problems I've experienced.

I noticed something else; When I mentioned the problems Scott said;

Until the boy is old enough for the foreskin to be unforcibly retracted, the matter of cleanliness is a non-issue.

Followed by

Unless the foreskin has been forcibly retracted in infancy, it should not even be an issue.

And such forcible retraction should never be done. It is unnecessary, and it could lead to problems.

I know someone failed to give me the instruction manual that normally comes with a new infant, but I can believe that there are many a new mother and father that might forcibly retract the foreskin trying to make sure the child is kept clean, assuming my own experience with my wife is any kind of an example. So while up til now I've only had personal anecdotal experience you've just convinced me that a well-meaning, over-cleaning, fanatic parent has a chance of damaging something on a non-circumcized child that they can't or won't likely do to a circumcized one.

-SlackTime