The Church today has no official position on modern circumcision (posthectomy). The church has not expressed their neutrality nor lack of a position in any form.

​

There have only been 3 times that the word "circumcision" has been mentioned directly in conference. Note that these were for the ancient practice of circumcision and there is no mention of modern circumcision (posthectomy)

​

1. "The names of some of the denominations which arose in that early time—"

​

Here is one of those apostate denominations:

​

"...the Judaeo-Christians who tried to Judaize the Christian religion by introducing mosaic rituals, including circumcision..."

​

(Mark E. Petersen April 1979 General Conference Signs of the True Church)

​

2. "The Lord made a covenant with Noah, and the rainbow became the token of that eternal covenant with all mankind.The covenant made with Abraham and his seed was sealed by the ceremony of circumcision as a 

sacrament. And the token or sign of the great covenant with all Israel made at Sinai was the Sabbath."

​

(Howard W. Hunter October 1982 General Conference Commitment to God)

​

3. "A controversy arose about whether circumcision required under the law of Moses should carry over as a commandment in the gospel and Church of Christ. “And the apostles and elders came together for to consider … this   matter”. Our record of this council is certainly incomplete, but we are told that after “much disputing”, Peter, the senior Apostle, rose up and declared what the Holy Spirit had confirmed to him. He reminded the  council that when the gospel began to be preached to the uncircumcised Gentiles in the house of Cornelius, they received the Holy Ghost just as had the circumcised Jewish converts. God, he said, “put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith."

​

(Elder D. Todd Christofferson April 2012 General Conference The Doctrine of Christ)

​

(You might remember this talk from when Elder Christofferson quipped "translate that!" after saying "biblical hermeneutics and exegesis")

​

Study Questions

1. If mosaic rituals including circumcision contributed to the apostasy and fracturing of the early church, does modern circumcision (posthectomy) pose any danger to members today?

2. Was circumcision a symbol of "Commitment to God"? How are we asked to show our commitment to God today?

3. What do we learn from the early Apostles in resolving the "controversy" surrounding circumcision? Can we apply that to today?

​

Female Circumcision (FGM)

In an address to a conference on religious persecution Elder Holland condemned female circumcision (FGM.)

 

“Instances of female genital mutilation, removable [sic] of bodily appendages, and honor killings persist during times of peace. God knows of [the women’s] suffering and weeps with them.”

​

This is the only time a church leader has spoken against female circumcision. 

​

Many people feel that female circumcision isn't at all comparable to male circumcision.

 

For most operations the female prepuce is removed (the male prepuce is removed in circumcision) Admittedly, female circumcision has much more variation. Sometimes there is just a knick to the clitoris, in other cases the clitoris and labia are removed entirely. Regardless, the justifications, rationales, and culture surrounding it are very similar even though the procedures can be very different.

​

Proponents of female circumcision justify it with shockingly similar health claims and aesthetic claims. (see here, external link). Many women are similarly proud of their circumcisions. There are no cultures that practice female circumcision that don't also practice male circumcision.

​

Study Questions

1. Do you think female and male circumcision are similar? If not, why? What specifically warrants such a distinction? Is it a religious, health or cultural reason?

2. Could the Brethren have similar opinions surrounding male circumcision? How might they differ?

​

Why is the Church silent today?

​

With modern circumcision (posthectomy) the church doesn't express neutrality. There is no church policy surrounding circumcision. Here are some possibilities for the silence. They are ​highly speculative.

​

• The Brethren may assume that modern scripture in D&C and the Book of Mormon are clear on circumcision and they don't need to speak to the topic. Here is an explanation from an Ensign article about the ancient controversy of circumcision. Surely the modern controversy of circumcision fits this.

  

In like manner today, there may be questions on which the doctrinal foundation is clear but on which tradition or custom are so strong that the Brethren are impressed not to take a firmer stand, trusting, as did Church leaders in New Testament times, that if the basic revealed principles are known, the Holy Ghost will eventually lead the adherents to forsake their tradition, or academic popularity, or peer pressure in favor of the word of God. [A Crisis, a Council, and Inspired Leadership
By Robert J. Matthews]

​

• The Brethren have not spoken about modern circumcision (posthectomy) because it is seen as a medical practice. As such they don't see it within their realm of expertise or responsibility.

• The Church doesn't want to strain its relationship with jewish groups because anti-circumcision sentiments are, or could be perceived as anti-semitic.

• The Brethren perceive circumcision to be insignificant, a non-issue, or harmless. They likely don't know how modern circumcision (posthectomy) is much more extreme than its ancient practice. They likely don't understand how it damages intimacy and spirituality.

• The Brethren work through unanimity and consensus. Perhaps it is an issue that they cannot come to consensus on so they focus instead on policies and changes where they do have consensus.

• They may have an opinion or stance but they don't express it now. Perhaps it is a topic they see as too contentious or political at the current time. (This might be a possible situation for another hot button issue: gender-dysphoria/transgenderism)

​

All of these possibilities are only half of the picture because the brethren are lead by God. The broader or larger question might be: Why hasn't Heavenly Father inspired the brethren to discuss or speak to modern circumcision? Here are some possibilities for God's apparent silence.

​

• Maybe it is a topic like Slavery. At one time it was supported and allowed. Perhaps in ancient times when it was more like indentured servitude or a more humane alternative for POWs than prison camps. Then, slavery morphed into a truly abominable race based inescapable chattel institution. Joseph was against slavery but he wasn't a radical abolitionist. However Brigham was far more accepting of slavery. Teachings on slavery (and racism) in the church seem to have been based more on leaders' previous biases than on revelation. It seems that the Lord lets even the best of us suffer in our notions and biases until we decide to ask him.

• God may be cursing us or letting us live with our own mistakes and shortcomings. For example: we read in the Book of Mormon how the Amlicites marked themselves in red and brought upon themselves a curse. Remember that they did this unknowingly. God doesn't usually tell us that he is punishing us.

• The Lord has already addressed this topic throughout the Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants in his own voice. (Yet it isn't something he has spoken to today.) We can't assume that God is ambivalent towards circumcision (posthectomy) today because that would make him a changing God. Regardless he may feel that he has already spoken enough on the topic, where we should be familiar with those scriptures and his words. Imagine the Lord were to return tomorrow and people brought this dispute to him. Wouldn't he refer us to his revealed word like when the Nephites disputed among themselves what to call the Church?

​

Study Questions

1. Why do you think this is a subject not addressed today by the Lord and the Brethren?

2. If the Brethren are silent on a topic, can we assume neutrality or apathy for that topic?

3. If the Brethren did make a policy today on circumcision, what might it look like? Might it be similar to Paul's policy described in the Doctrine and Covenants?

​

What to do when the Church is Silent?

​

The most common explanation amongst (U.S.) members for circumcision and the Church is this: God expects us to decide for ourselves. It is not wise to be counseled in all things.  So the decision is wholly up to the parents.

​

This commonplace explanation is often a thoughtless excuse for parents that want to decide by themselves. Somehow many Latter-day Saints forget that when we don't have explicit guidance, we are to study things out. For example in the sphere of politics the Brethren expect us to be active and informed even though they are expressly neutral. We are also to consult the Lord in all our decisions.

​

We challenge you our reader to seek guidance on this difficult topic through the Holy Ghost (Read Our Challenge)

​

Study Questions

1. If you had (or are having) your son(s) circumcised: Did you ask the Lord about your decision? How did he respond? Did you feel a peace or confirmation?

2. Have you studied circumcision? Is it a topic with which you are informed enough to make a decision? If so, can you answer the following questions?

• When and why did circumcision start in the United States?​

• What do the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants say about circumcision?

• How has the procedure changed and become more extreme since Biblical times?

• What are the functions of the foreskin?

​