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 suppossed 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