 |
Dear
Gramps, My husband and I are expecting. If we have a son, we have chosen
that that we will not circumcise him. My aunt disagrees with our choice to
keep him intact because she says that LDS boys are supposed to be
circumcised in preparation for the second coming of Christ. Somehow she
believes that in order for the “sons of Levi to again offer a sacrifice in
righteousness unto the Lord,” part of that qualification of righteousness
includes that they MUST be circumcised. (Which doesn’t make sense, because
my whole family is either Ephraim or Manassah anyway, not Levi). Excuse me,
but I thought this debate was settled by Paul—that it was more important
to be “circumcised of heart,” and further clarified in the Book of
Mormon (Moroni 8:8). Is there an official Church stance on circumcision? And
will the sons of Levi REALLY have to be circumcised in order for their
sacrifice to be accepted by God? Anonymous |
Dear
Anonymous,
It
seems that you have researched the subject of circumcision and have answered all
your own questions. The law of circumcision, as you know, was done away with
when the Savior instituted the higher law. It was not done away with for some of
the tribes of Israel and not for others. Does your aunt think that the practice
of the Church today is not in accordance with the will of the Lord, or that she
has some information about the sons of Levi that the Church does not have?
Gramps