bluebell Posted November 27, 2017 Posted November 27, 2017 (edited) 12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: That is why I suggested substituting the phrase “provisionally unethical.” Perhaps you missed the post wherein I did that. You can use whatever phrase you want, but I wasn't talking about provisional ethics so there would be no reason for me to use that term. I was talking about the inherent ethics of the issue. Your suggestion also doesn't change the fact that you were incorrect about my post. I used the term inherently unethical and because of that I did not create a false dichotomy. Edited November 27, 2017 by bluebell 1
Scott Lloyd Posted November 27, 2017 Posted November 27, 2017 4 hours ago, bluebell said: You can use whatever phrase you want, but I wasn't talking about provisional ethics so there would be no reason for me to use that term. I was talking about the inherent ethics of the issue. Your suggestion also doesn't change the fact that you were incorrect about my post. I used the term inherently unethical and because of that I did not create a false dichotomy. Since God has not decreed circumcision since the Mosaic Law was fulfilled with the coming of Christ, it does strike me as a distinction without a substantial difference.
bluebell Posted November 27, 2017 Posted November 27, 2017 9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Since God has not decreed circumcision since the Mosaic Law was fulfilled with the coming of Christ, it does strike me as a distinction without a substantial difference. It doesn't strike me that way. If someone attempts to question the morality of circumcision, then it seems logical that on a religious board the discussion would include God's 'thought's' on the subject. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted November 27, 2017 Posted November 27, 2017 10 minutes ago, bluebell said: It doesn't strike me that way. If someone attempts to question the morality of circumcision, then it seems logical that on a religious board the discussion would include God's 'thought's' on the subject. Well, obviously "God's thoughts on the subject" are that the practice served its purpose and no longer has any theological application. Which is the only application it ever had, as far as God is concerned.
bluebell Posted November 27, 2017 Posted November 27, 2017 41 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Well, obviously "God's thoughts on the subject" are that the practice served its purpose and no longer has any theological application. Which is the only application it ever had, as far as God is concerned. I meant God's thoughts on the morality of the subject. If someone is attempting to question the morality of circumcision, then God's thoughts on its morality are relevant to the discussion. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted November 27, 2017 Posted November 27, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, bluebell said: I meant God's thoughts on the morality of the subject. If someone is attempting to question the morality of circumcision, then God's thoughts on its morality are relevant to the discussion. At the moment, I'm unaware of any clear indication of God's thoughts on the morality of the practice in this day and age, be they pro or con. If I were so inclined, I suppose, like anyone, else I could extrapolate. I know that senior Church leaders, presumably under inspiration, have frowned upon other forms of body alteration, namely tattoos and excessive piercing. One could reasonably draw an analogous parallel between those and the arbitrary, non-medically-indicated, surgical removal of another's body part without the informed consent of him on whom the surgery is being performed. Edited November 27, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 1
bluebell Posted November 28, 2017 Posted November 28, 2017 (edited) 32 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: At the moment, I'm unaware of any clear indication of God's thoughts on the morality of the practice in this day and age, be they pro or con. If the Bible accounts are to be believed, then we know that circumcision is not inherently unethical. Beyond that, I agree that we do not absolutely know what God thinks about the practice. Though if I were to extrapolate, I think the fact that the church has no policy or teaching against it likely means that It’s not provisionally unethical either. It’s so prominent in our culture that I don’t believe the Lord would be silent on the issue if it was immoral. As you said, the church has spoken out against other forms of body modification (though has not said those were immoral either) so it would be weird for them to stay silent about this if it was a sin. (which does not mean that people are wrong by not circumcising their boys) Edited November 28, 2017 by bluebell 2
Scott Lloyd Posted November 28, 2017 Posted November 28, 2017 (edited) 25 minutes ago, bluebell said: If the Bible accounts are to be believed, then we know that circumcision is not inherently unethical. Bible accounts or not, informed consent is impossible with routine neonatal circumcision. In the absence of a clear decree from God, each individual must decide, I suppose, whether or not that seems ethical. Quote Beyond that, I agree that we do not absolutely know what God thinks about the practice. Though if I were to extrapolate, I think the fact that the church has no policy or teaching against it likely means that It’s not provisionally unethical either. It’s so prominent in our culture that I don’t believe the Lord would be silent on the issue if it was immoral. I think the Lord stays silent on a good many things. That doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't each arrive at our own well-considered decision on such things. Voting in political elections comes to mind. So does advocacy for or opposition to certain social causes. Some things we are left to wrestle with on our own. I believe that reflects divine wisdom. It is "not meet" to be commanded in all things. Quote As you said, the church has spoken out against other forms of body modification (though has not said those were immoral either) ... I would say they are contrary to the will of God. Otherwise the senior leadership wouldn't even have raised the subject. Read the link I provided. The language is clear-cut and hard-hitting: "Those who disregard this counsel show a lack of respect for themselves and for God." Quote ... so it would be weird for them to stay silent about this if it was a sin. You keep using words like "sin" and "immoral." I have stopped short of saying it is "a sin," though I do believe it to be misguided and arguably unethical and have said so. Quote (which does not mean that people are wrong by not circumcising their boys) On that we are agreed. Edited November 28, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 1
bluebell Posted November 28, 2017 Posted November 28, 2017 (edited) 40 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Bible accounts or not, informed consent is impossible with routine neonatal circumcision. In the absence of a clear decree from God, each individual must decide, I suppose, whether or not that seems ethical. I agree. Quote I think the Lord stays silent on a good many things. That doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't each arrive at our own well-considered decision on such things. I agree. I don't think anyone is arguing differently. Quote Some things we are left to wrestle with on our own. I agree. As far as i am aware though, God does not leave us to wrestle on our own those things which are immoral. We have policies and teachings in the church about how to be buried and how many earrings to have (both issues that do not impact our salvation in and of themselves). Given that, it makes no sense for anyone to say (and i'm not saying you are saying it) that circumcision might be a sin but God wants each of us to find that out on our own. Quote You keep using words like "sin" and "immoral." I have stopped short of saying it is "a sin," though I do believe it to be misguided and arguably unethical and have said so. I'm using those words because they are synonymous with the word unethical. The definition of unethical is when something isn't morally correct. If something is unethical, it's not moral; it's immoral. And if something is immoral it is sinful. Edited November 28, 2017 by bluebell 1
Calm Posted November 28, 2017 Posted November 28, 2017 If all forms of body modification should be seriously viewed as problematic, as "contrary to the will of God", then why is one pair of ear piercing stated as acceptable? If it is because it is not "excessive", then one needs to demonstrate that circumcision is "excessive". That seems very subjective to me.
Scott Lloyd Posted November 28, 2017 Posted November 28, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Calm said: If all forms of body modification should be seriously viewed as problematic, as "contrary to the will of God", then why is one pair of ear piercing stated as acceptable? If it is because it is not "excessive", then one needs to demonstrate that circumcision is "excessive". That seems very subjective to me. My clear recollection of President Hinckley’s talk on this subject is not that that the Church approves of piercing for one pair of earrings. Rather, it is that the Church “takes no position” on it. That sounds very much like a concession or an accommodation to me rather than an encouragement. At the same time, it strongly discourages more than one set of piercings. And make no mistake: The issue here is not the number of sets of earrings. It is body piercing. My sense is that the leadership of the Church would be perfectly happy if no piercings at all occurred. Furthermore, if the presence of a or prevalence of a practice in society were a signal of the Church’s acceptance or encouragement of it, why didn’t the Church leaders raise any alarm or objection as the frequency of circumcision has so rapidly and dramatically diminished over the past few decades? In Utah, it is now down to about 33 percent, according to the latest source I read. In the ‘60s, it was above 90 percent. Again, the silence of the Church on a matter does not preclude any of us from arriving individually at a well-considered position on it, including its wisdom, efficacy and, yes, it’s ethics. Edited November 28, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted November 28, 2017 Posted November 28, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, bluebell said: I agree. I agree. I don't think anyone is arguing differently. I agree. As far as i am aware though, God does not leave us to wrestle on our own those things which are immoral. We have policies and teachings in the church about how to be buried and how many earrings to have (both issues that do not impact our salvation in and of themselves). Given that, it makes no sense for anyone to say (and i'm not saying you are saying it) that circumcision might be a sin but God wants each of us to find that out on our own. I'm using those words because they are synonymous with the word unethical. The definition of unethical is when something isn't morally correct. If something is unethical, it's not moral; it's immoral. And if something is immoral it is sinful. It has been only relatively recently that society at large has begun to seriously question whether the benefits of circumcision are clear enough to justify the routine performance of it on newborns who, of course, are incapable of consenting to it. Up to the ‘80s or ‘90s the supposed benefits were pretty much taken for granted. I surmise that the lack of a Church position on the matter stems from that time frame and, for whatever reason, the Brethren have not chosen to consider the matter. We should not expect the Church to dictate our thinking and behavior in each and every particular. On some things we should be guided by our own thinking, study and conscience. Edited November 28, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
bluebell Posted November 28, 2017 Posted November 28, 2017 34 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: It has been only relatively recently that society at large has begun to seriously question whether the benefits of circumcision are clear enough to justify the routine performance of it on newborns who, of course, are incapable of consenting to it. Up to the ‘80s or ‘90s the supposed benefits were pretty much taken for granted. I surmise that the lack of a Church position on the matter stems from that time frame and, for whatever reason, the Brethren have not chosen to consider the matter. We should not expect the Church to dictate our thinking and behavior in each and every thing. On some things we should be guided by our own thinking, study and conscience. Has there ever been a case where something was immoral and God didn’t specify that it was? How can we justify the church giving us a policy on cremation (which isn’t immoral) but saying nothing about circumcision if it was immoral? The church has gone against social customs and beliefs in the past (WOW, polygamy) so I don’t think we can use that to justify silence on an issue of morality either.
Hamba Tuhan Posted November 28, 2017 Posted November 28, 2017 1 hour ago, Calm said: One needs to demonstrate that circumcision is "excessive". That seems very subjective to me. It is indeed subjective. And by definition there can be only one subject in relation to this matter: the person to whom the flesh belongs. In any other set of circumstances, the owner of the foreskin is being treated as an object. 2
Hamba Tuhan Posted November 28, 2017 Posted November 28, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, bluebell said: If the Bible accounts are to be believed, then we know that circumcision is not inherently unethical. We know no such thing, and for a number of reasons, one of which is that what the Bible labels circumcision is not practised, as far as I'm aware, by anyone anywhere on this planet, and certainly not by Muslims, Jews or Americans. This is not a difference of extent but rather of kind. Biblical circumcision altered appearance but had zero impact on function, very similar to piercing an infant's ears. I'm not a fan of either, but my dislike is certainly mild in comparison to how I would feel about parents whose culture it might be to slice off their daughter's external ears ... or their son's foreskins. Edited November 28, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan 1
Hamba Tuhan Posted November 28, 2017 Posted November 28, 2017 18 minutes ago, bluebell said: Has there ever been a case where something was immoral and God didn’t specify that it was? Speaking generally, I think He does this all the time. In fact, I feel reasonably confident that if God were to tell us everything that is immoral, it would shatter us and leave us without any hope. Isn't this the whole point of 'line upon line, precept upon precept; here a little and there a little'? 1
bluebell Posted November 28, 2017 Posted November 28, 2017 1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said: Speaking generally, I think He does this all the time. In fact, I feel reasonably confident that if God were to tell us everything that is immoral, it would shatter us and leave us without any hope. Isn't this the whole point of 'line upon line, precept upon precept; here a little and there a little'? Don’t the scriptures teach that God cannot condone sin?
bluebell Posted November 28, 2017 Posted November 28, 2017 2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: We know no such thing, and for a number of reasons, one of which is that what the Bible labels circumcision is not practised, as far as I'm aware, by anyone anywhere on this planet, and certainly not by Muslims, Jews or Americans. This is not a difference of extent but rather of kind. Biblical circumcision altered appearance but had zero impact on function, very similar to piercing an infant's ears. I'm not a fan of either, but my dislike is certainly mild in comparison to how I would feel about parents whose culture it might be to slice off their daughter's external ears ... or their son's foreskins. I agree that biblical circumcision was the removal of only part of the foreskin. Circumcision today does not impact function though.
Hamba Tuhan Posted November 28, 2017 Posted November 28, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, bluebell said: Don’t the scriptures teach that God cannot condone sin? I don't condone bad punctuation, either, but when I used to edit student work, I didn't bring up their bad punctuation unless or until we'd first worked through their unclear theses and shambolic organisation. Edited November 28, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan 1
Hamba Tuhan Posted November 28, 2017 Posted November 28, 2017 1 hour ago, bluebell said: Circumcision today does not impact function though. Are you seriously going to argue that the foreskin has no functions??? 1
bluebell Posted November 28, 2017 Posted November 28, 2017 (edited) 13 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: Are you seriously going to argue that the foreskin has no functions??? I'm saying that studies have shown that its removal has no real impact on function. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3881635/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3042320/ https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/201510/does-circumcision-reduce-men-s-sexual-sensitivity Edited November 28, 2017 by bluebell
bluebell Posted November 28, 2017 Posted November 28, 2017 10 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: I don't condone bad punctuation, either, but when I used to edit student work, I didn't bring up their bad punctuation unless or until we'd first worked through their unclear theses and shambolic organisation. But is bad punctuation an issue of morality? 1
Hamba Tuhan Posted November 28, 2017 Posted November 28, 2017 2 hours ago, bluebell said: I'm saying that studies have shown that its removal has no real impact on function. Not what I asked. Let me try again: does the foreskin have functions?
ttribe Posted November 28, 2017 Posted November 28, 2017 8 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: Not what I asked. Let me try again: does the foreskin have functions?
bluebell Posted November 28, 2017 Posted November 28, 2017 5 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: Not what I asked. Let me try again: does the foreskin have functions? From what i've read (which isn't very much), it seems that the actual function of the foreskin is disputed. In other words, some believe that it does have functions and other people believe that it's vestigial. Studies have shown that keeping the foreskin does not improve sex for men (it is reported as just as satisfying, and some say more so, after circumcision as it was before), and that cutting it off does not negatively impact any of the functions of the penis.
Recommended Posts