i dont
2006-11-16 12:21:45
·
answer #1
·
answered by superbatman 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
I think a couple of the other people got it right when they said it is up to the parents. But I wanted to add something about "circumcision" that I found interesting. From what I understand the Lord instituted the practice of circumcision for a particular reason...The child was to be circumcised when they were 8 days old. This was done for a reminder to the people...a reminder of what? That children are to be baptized only when they are 8 YEARS old...why? because that is when children become accountable. It is at that age when they can know between what is right and what is wrong.
Moroni 8:22 For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing—
Baptism (and repentance) are only for those who can sin! if they don't know the law then they don't know if they are doing right or wrong and therefore they are not condemned (because - how could they know?)
But because people insisted on baptizing little children in spite of being taught not to...The Lord gave them something to help them remember... (They got reminded every time they went to the bathroom)(Remember 8 DAYS old = circumcised = 8 YEARS old = baptism)
The Lord is very adamant about teaching that little children are innocent and will be saved - without baptism!
Moroni 8:13 Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell.
14 Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell.
15 For awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism.
16 Wo be unto them that shall pervert the ways of the Lord after this manner, for they shall perish except they repent. Behold, I speak with boldness, having authority from God; and I fear not what man can do; for perfect love casteth out all fear.
2006-11-17 18:51:29
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Religiously, no, makes no difference really. Authorities don't go around making sure everyone is circumcised. It is definitely not a requirement of males to join either.
Practically, yes, because it's healthy. That's why it was done in earlier times, for health reasons. Many Doctors today recommend it.
2006-11-16 20:25:51
·
answer #3
·
answered by Coool 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
the LDS church does not require a boy to be circumsized...it is totally up to the parents and is more a medical issue. But if you're looking for actual church doctrine look in The Book of Mormon;
Moroni 8:8
"Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me."
2006-11-17 02:58:22
·
answer #4
·
answered by shmaerbear 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
If they do they have a problem because that is a sign if the covenent between Abraham and his people.....the jews not muslims :)
2006-11-16 20:26:27
·
answer #5
·
answered by Michael P 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
We believe that it is up to the parents.
2006-11-16 20:21:49
·
answer #6
·
answered by trollwzrd 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think so. It's all part of their anti-wanking campaign.
http://www.moonmac.com/Mormon_masturbation.html
2006-11-16 20:22:36
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
no
2006-11-16 20:22:32
·
answer #8
·
answered by george p 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
oh please.
2006-11-16 21:40:35
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋