Doctrine and Covenants has an entire section on circumcision. It is an explanation of an ambiguous phrase from the New Testament (1 Cor. 7:14).

​

This first verse is a direct quote of the ambiguous phrase from Paul's epistle to the Corinthians. (An early editor likely included it for context because it doesn't appear in the original manuscript.)

​

1 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; else were your children unclean, but now are they holy.

​

The following verses are an explanation about Paul's statement. Note that the voice in this section is likely God the Father himself. 

​

2 Now, in the days of the apostles the law of circumcision was had among all the Jews who believed not the gospel of Jesus Christ.

​

Note God is not talking about the Law of Moses in general, but about circumcision.

​

3 And it came to pass that there arose a great contention among the people concerning the law of circumcision, for the unbelieving husband was desirous that his children should be circumcised and become subject to the law of Moses, which law was fulfilled.

 

4 And it came to pass that the children, being brought up in subjection to the law of Moses, gave heed to the traditions of their fathers and believed not the gospel of Christ, wherein they became unholy.

 

5 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,

​

We might be able to consider this "commandment, not of the Lord, but of himself" to be like a modern church policy. The difference may be that the Lord inspired Paul but didn't give him a direct  commandment. Undoubtedly God approved of Paul's actions because He explains to Joseph (and us) here the purpose of Paul's policy.

​

Note that this policy means that a couple couldn't be married if one the spouses wanted their children circumcised and to practice the law of Moses.

​

6 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;

​

Note that verse 6 starts mid-sentence. The original manuscript didn't have verses. Without the break it is clear that in this case the Law of Moses was to be done away with so their children wouldn't be circumcised.

 

7 But little children are holy, being sanctified through the atonement of Jesus Christ; and this is what the scriptures mean.

​

It might be important to note that Paul didn't emphasize that the spouses should just be in agreement. Coincidentally Paul's policy resembles a somewhat recent modern policy: Paul places the well-being of the children over the potential parent's desires. The reason for this ancient policy was also to protect children. Paul's policy may have even felt harsh at the time too.

​

Also, notice how in these verses "unholy" corresponds to circumcised rather than uncircumcised because it lead children to "believe...not in the gospel of Christ"

​

What Have The Brethren Said About This Section?

Almost all references from the brethren to this section have either been only about the "traditions of fathers" or that little children are holy and but mention of circumcision. There is only one that mentions circumcision more directly. Joseph Fielding Smith explains:

​

Paul spoke not by commandment, but of himself. His intent, as explained in Section 74, being that where there were mixed families in the Church, the teachings of the Law of Moses and the doctrines which were fulfilled, should not be maintained. Male children in such families were not to be circumcised, and they would be holy. It was the doctrine of the Jews that unless this were done children were unholy. This Paul wished to correct. It was very difficult for the Jewish members of the Church to forsake all of their traditions and turn from the Law of Moses, and from circumcision which were fulfilled. [Emphasis Added],(Church History and Modern Revelation, 4 vols. [Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1946-1949], 2: 45.)

​

Study questions to ask yourself and God:​

​

• Does the modern tradition of radical posthectomy (modern circumcision) similarly imply or suggest that little boys are somehow unholy, dirty, or icky?

• Do we need to be commanded in all things? Or can we be inspired like Paul to make inspired decisions for our families and future family members?

• With a lack of modern commandments/policies, can we assume God has no opinion on radical posthectomy (modern circumcision)?

​

If you yourself had a posthectomy (modern circumcision):

​​

• Do you have a harder time feeling or believing in the gospel of Christ, from this tradition of your fathers? How might you increase your faith in Christ?

​

If you are single:

​

• If you and a future spouse disagree if your future boys should be posthectomized (circumcised); could this disagreement be an acceptable "deal-breaker"?

​

Next read about Circumcision at the time of the early church.

​

​

 

​