Elder Holland: Religion crucial to a moral, peaceful society

[orangganjil]

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Mmm-kay.  How long has it been since you're attended an endowment session in the temple?  If one listens well enough, I think one will find that the opposite point is made absolutely crystal clear there, not just once, but repeatedly.  And the scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, are not in accord with that idea.  Yes, Christ is a great teacher (that's why He's called Rabbi), but so is the leader of every signficant religious movement one can name.  

By contrast, Christ is not just Rabbi, He is Savior.  Even if we, ourselves, commit no sin, while we as Latter-day Saints reject the traditional idea of original sin, without the Atonement (including Christ's death on the cross), our souls would automatically be subject to the Adversary because of the Fall (see 2 Nephi 9).  What "cup" was Christ asking be taken from him if it wasn't the necessity of dying on the cross (see Luke 22:42)?  As God the Son, Christ had the power to live forever and to not die, but the Father commanded Christ to lay down his life (see John 10:17-18).

I bear you no personal ill will.  Indeed, I wish you well, and I bid you a hearty hail and welcome to the Board and out of "lurk" mode.   That said, I believe you are gravely mistaken, and I cannot, simply in the name of good will, let the idea that the Atonement is unnecessary go unchallenged.    

Thank you for your kind and welcoming words. I appreciate the push back as well. I think that perhaps I wasn't completely clear in that I completely believe the Atonement was necessary, though I don't believe that the act of being killed was the atonement, rather that the submission to others while loving them, even to the point of being killed, was what made Jesus special and completed the Atonement. By loving no matter the costs Jesus won the prize and now offers redemption to all of us. He is the Son of God and inherited all the Father has, and in his love he then offers inheritance to us as well if we will follow his example.

You mentioned the endowment, which I think is important here. I think what you're referring to in the endowment is a symbolic act of the real thing, when we, like Thomas or the Nephites, get to feel for ourselves the tokens of his Atonement. I believe the scriptures, as well as the endowment ceremony, point to his sacrifice because that is what occurred. In other words, the scriptures testify of his death (even the method of his death) because it would occur as it did. They anticipated the event rather than him being forced to die the way he did because of how the scriptures testified. Does that make sense?

Anyway, I believe Jesus' redemption and sacrifice was to love even to the point of giving his life as a ransom for all. 

[Johnnie Cake]

Quote

Storm rider: Please identify one of those countries that does not have a distinct religious heritage

With all due respect, that was NOT the claim being made...you are moving the goal posts.  The claim was that "Religion is crucial to a moral, peaceful society"  Its a false claim as TheSkepticChristian's list of Happy, Peaceful, Moral Secular countries demonstrates

Edited August 19, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[TheSkepticChristian]

25 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

 TheSkepticChristian's list of Happy, Peaceful, Moral countries demonstrates

Thanks! and here it is again 

On 8/17/2016 at 9:06 PM, TheSkepticChristian said:

Where is the evidence that religion is necessary for a peaceful society? 

Top Ten Least Corrupt Countries 
Denmark    
Finland    
Sweden    
New Zealand    
Norway    
Netherlands    
Switzerland    
Singapore    
Canada    
Germany
Source: Corruption Perceptions Index 2015

Top Ten Most Peaceful Countries 
Iceland 
Denmark 
Austria 
New Zealand
Portugal 
Czech Republic 
Switzerland
Canada 
Japan 
Slovenia 
Source: Global Peace Index rankings

Top Ten Happiest Countries 
Denmark 
Switzerland
Iceland
Norway 
Findland 
Netherlands
New Zealand 
Austria 
Sweden 
Source: World Happiness Report 2016

Poverty 
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2046.html

and Flexible made an interesting point 

On 8/17/2016 at 10:16 PM, Flexible said:

Is wealth more important than religion in creating a stable, moral; society?

The richest country (the USA) is never on the top ten. 

Edited August 19, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Gray]

20 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I have been engaged in "mindfulness meditation" for 25 years or so under various names, arguably it is virtually the same as "Shikantaza" meditation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shikantaza

At a certain point it becomes extremely difficult to separate this technique from deliberately "listening to the spirit" and receiving insights, which one "files away" for later contemplation.

When one is able to meditate continuously by keeping that attitude throughout the day, putting the difference between THAT and the "constant companionship of the Holy Spirit" into words is virtually impossible.

Sure, I can't distinguish them either, although my experience with mindfulness meditation is limited and recent. 

 

20 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I am not saying they are the "same"- I think the Holy Spirit is clearly a BEING outside yourself while meditation is communication with your unconscious self.

I don't see the need to think that the Holy Spirit is literally a being. To me the Spirit is a metaphor for any number of experiences including:

• A sense of transcendent awe or elevation
• One's conscience
• Inspiration

I have no problem with the term Holy Spirit. But when I use the word I'm not thinking of a being.

 

20 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

But that statement itself - that charactization - doesn't really communicate well.   The problem is telling people the difference.  The words don't work.  So for all linguistic purposes I guess the differences must be ignored.  But they are there

That's why I don't like "Mindfulness" as a label because it is not personal and I think it must be personal to be "religious"  God is real.  He is out there.  We feel Him inside though so that distinction is impossible to define
 

I don't think it must be personal to be religious. There are plenty of deeply religious people who don't believe in a personal God. The personal, human-like God is just one of many possible models.  

[hope_for_things]

11 hours ago, orangganjil said:

I have never posted here before but have lurked for a long time. I wanted to maybe offer a slightly different view of the Atonement than most people maintain. I don't know if it will offer an alternative perspective for you, but it's probably worth a try.

I believe that this entire existence, including the idea of religion, church, family, society, etc., is simply a construct in which we are to learn love. By learning love, we are fashioned into the image of God. I believe love is how God governs and that it is the source of his power. If we want to be like him, we must learn love (see Moroni 7:48 - what does it take to be a son of God and to be like him?).

The chosen people (Israel) weren't chosen because they were something special, but rather they were to carry the burden of reflecting the image of God into the world, showing people that God is a god of love, not a petty, vengeful god. They failed at this responsibility and assumed that they were something special, standing apart from, and looking down upon, the rest of society.

Jesus came to demonstrate the image of God. He came to show how a king in the kingdom of heaven is supposed to act. He showed what it takes to be a son of God, for  it was by love that he obtained that title. I don't believe he had to die on the cross or be killed in order to fulfill his mission. Rather, I believe he had to love completely, which meant he submitted himself to the whims of others. He taught and practiced love, eventually coming into conflict with those who would cling to power and authority rather than embrace that message of love. When they struck him, he didn't return the blow. He was willing to go even to death rather than return hate for hate, violence for violence, etc. Rather than use his power for gain or to compel others, or even to fight back against injustice committed against himself, he suffered at the hand of others, returning love for all that they did to him. 

It is by his love - his unending, complete love - that he won the right to be Son of God and inherit all that the Father has. The sacrifice he made wasn't the act of death at someone else's hands, like some lamb led to the slaughter. Rather, his sacrifice was extending love to all, even to the point of experiencing death in the most shameful manner of that era. He didn't lash out at injustice, but submitted, respected agency, and loved anyway, purchasing an inheritance from the Father. He then extends to us the offer to share in that inheritance if we will learn to love as he does. In that way he uses his power to forgive our sins and make us like him - inheritors of all the Father has.

Just my perspective.

Wow, thanks for making your first comment on this board and responding to my post.  I really appreciate hearing your perspectives on this.  I'm searching and forming my beliefs still and I like some of what you've shared here, it gives me something to contemplate on.  

Love does seem like a value that I believe God cares the most about, and I like the way you've constructed the gospel message to emphasize this attribute.  People matter to me, and I believe people matter to God as well.  What God is, I don't think anyone knows much about material attributes, but it does seem to me that love can and should be the central attribute of God, and I wholeheartedly agree with you on that point.

I don't like thinking of God as a male anymore.  I find this too discriminatory to women.  This is part of why I don't like to think of God as a human person, because the God that I envision is a God that encompasses all the attributes of men and women equally, not a God that just represents one gender.  I think God also loves and appreciates all creation, animals and plants and mountains and rivers.  I think God loves all and understands and appreciates all of these things.  So thats part of why I can't put God into this box of a human form anymore, I think it limits my conception of God too much.  This is what resonates with me today, I'm not trying to prove anything is correct through appeals to scripture.  

[hope_for_things]

20 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

William James talks about God as a "Chessmaster" who is like us but infinitely intelligent, and we are like chess beginners.   He doesn't need to be "omniscient" in a conventional sense, implying problems with our agency etc- those are all philosophical linguistic problems generated by the idea of "omnipotence" itself.  "Can God create a boulder...."  etc

But God as Infinite Chessmaster always can instantly see a "move" to work his purposes through even though he also lives with an indeterminate future as we do.

He turns every event to his purposes and always "wins" because his intelligence is so advanced, so that no matter what happens he "sees a way around" the problem so problems and challenges don't exist.   That also takes care of being "omnipotent" as well.

This is the kind of thinking that thinks around the traditional problems of omniscience and omnipotence and could be presented to secularists as explanations for God and avoiding the traditional theological "problems"

This is how our philosophy is superior to traditional Christianity and can communicate to secularism while they are stuck trying to explain how three "beings" can be one "substance" or why omniscience does not interfere with our agency

As chess novices, we still have our agency complete and make our moves without influence from anyone.  But the chessMaster can turn those moves we freely make to the purposes which he wants to accomplish

This is interesting, I still need to read some William James.  My initial reaction to this chess master idea is how does this account for the problem of evil question.  This chess master sounds like someone who could pull the strings of humanity like a puppet, but arbitrarily decides to allow suffering for what purpose?  I mentioned earlier that I don't think that Joseph's explanation that this is all for our experience is satisfactory to me.  If God can and does make chess moves to always create a winning scenario, why are so many people suffering and losing in this life.  What is the point and purpose of it all? 

Deists like to use the clock master idea, the concept that God wound a clock at the beginning of time, and that God doesn't get involved in everyday day life now, he just started the whole process in motion.  This seems like a better explanation to me to account for all the needless suffering.  But how does this compare to the William James analogy for a chess master?  

Edited August 19, 2016 by hope_for_things

[Johnnie Cake]

Quote

Storm Rider: Yes, this gets used a lot.  Tell me which one of those Scandinavian countries does not have a Christian heritage?  Just one?  Now, after overcoming that bit of nonsense, please share with us how heritage and history have zero impact on a nation, its people, and its culture?

So again we're moving the goal posts...ok... fair enough...each of these countries have had both a Pagan and a Christian heritage all of which have been rejected. So was it the chicken or the egg? I don't think any one is denying this foundation...but that was NOT the point of the claim...the claim stated that Religion is crucial to a moral, peaceful society...it's a false claim and not based in reality...as clearly demonstrated by the list of secular countries above that have rejected religion and yet remain happy, moral, and peaceful.

I believe Scott Lloyd has posted here that his son is currently serving a mission in Sweden.  Perhaps Scott could offer some insight as to whether his son is finding the people of Sweden happy, moral* and living in peace?

*I understand that Moral is a fixed target with the LDS Church but outside its a moving target...since most of Scandinavia has also rejected marriage, preferring to living together rather of forming a marriage contract. to the LDS church living in a happy committed non contract arrangement is considered immoral...while the secular world does not.

 

Edited August 19, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[Storm Rider]

43 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

With all due respect, that was NOT the claim being made...you are moving the goal posts.  The claim was that "Religion is crucial to a moral, peaceful society"  Its a false claim as TheSkepticChristian's list of Happy, Peaceful, Moral Secular countries demonstrates

No, you are moving the goal posts.  You are attempting to portray that religion has no impact on society when that society does not actively attend church or even claim they do not believe in God.  The issue is that these cultures have have long term relationship to and with religion.  Their cultural norms even today reflect that history.  Skeptic's claim is a red-herring and does not bear up upon examination by anyone that knows these countries and knows just a little bit about history.

The claim by Elder Holland is in line with the concept that religion has a very positive impact on civil society.

A more interesting example that you could have used is Russia.  Though it has had a long term influence from religion, it has also had a more short term influence with a political doctrine that attempted to destroy belief in God.  The impact has been corrosive on that culture and that society.  

Visit any of those Scandinavian countries and you will still see the influence of religion and its historical importance.  

[Gray]

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

This is interesting, I still need to read some William James.  My initial reaction to this chess master idea is how does this account for the problem of evil question.  This chess master sounds like someone who could pull the strings of humanity like a puppet, but arbitrarily decides to allow suffering for what purpose?  I mentioned earlier that I don't think that Joseph's explanation that this is all for our experience is satisfactory to me.  If God can and does make chess moves to always create a winning scenario, why are so many people suffering and losing in this life.  What is the point and purpose of it all? 

Deists like to use the clock master idea, the concept that God wound a clock at the beginning of time, and that God doesn't get involved in everyday day life now, he just started the whole process in motion.  This seems like a better explanation to me to account for all the needless suffering.  But how does this compare to the William James analogy for a chess master?  

When you play chess, of necessity you need to sacrifice some pieces to accomplish the aim of taking the opponent's king. That means that for God, the ends would justify the means. Not sure what MFB would think, just a thought I had. 

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

No, you are moving the goal posts.  You are attempting to portray that religion has no impact on society when that society does not actively attend church or even claim they do not believe in God.  The issue is that these cultures have have long term relationship to and with religion.  Their cultural norms even today reflect that history.  Skeptic's claim is a red-herring and does not bear up upon examination by anyone that knows these countries and knows just a little bit about history.

The claim by Elder Holland is in line with the concept that religion has a very positive impact on civil society.

A more interesting example that you could have used is Russia.  Though it has had a long term influence from religion, it has also had a more short term influence with a political doctrine that attempted to destroy belief in God.  The impact has been corrosive on that culture and that society.  

Visit any of those Scandinavian countries and you will still see the influence of religion and its historical importance.  

Communism was arguably corrosive for Russia (the old USSR). I'm not sure you can defend the claim that atheism was to blame for their ills.

[TheSkepticChristian]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

Yes, this gets used a lot.  Tell me which one of those Scandinavian countries does not have a Christian heritage?  

Note: China is very red because nearly 20% of China's population is Buddhist. Buddhism doesn't believe in God. 

 

Edited August 19, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

When you play chess, of necessity you need to sacrifice some pieces to accomplish the aim of taking the opponent's king. That means that for God, the ends would justify the means. Not sure what MFB would think, just a thought I had. 

Thats interesting.  So the greater good can be accomplished.  hmm, doesn't give much comfort for the genocides, famines, wars, and abuses around the world.  This ends must be pretty special to justify all that horrible suffering.  So sacrificing a piece (allowing for all this suffering) must have produced something positive that eventually leads to a win in the chess match. 

[Storm Rider]

15 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Note: China is very red because nearly 20% of China's population is Buddhist. Buddhism doesn't believe in God. 

 

This keeps getting better.  Let's start with some of the glaring areas with this type of logic:

• What does this graph have to do with your earlier post?
• Are you alleging that Buddhism is not a religion and has no significant moral teachings?
• Are yousaying that religion ceases to have an impact on a society or culture even when citizens begin to turn away from a belief in God? 
• Are you saying that a religion only has an impact on a culture or society if there is also a belief in God?

Nothing that you are saying seems to have anything to do with Elder Holland's comments.  It may be a good smokescreen and adds confusion by diverting the topic, but you have ignored Holland's statements.

[mfbukowski]

56 minutes ago, Gray said:

Sure, I can't distinguish them either, although my experience with mindfulness meditation is limited and recent. 

 

I don't see the need to think that the Holy Spirit is literally a being. To me the Spirit is a metaphor for any number of experiences including:

• A sense of transcendent awe or elevation
• One's conscience
• Inspiration

I have no problem with the term Holy Spirit. But when I use the word I'm not thinking of a being.

 

I don't think it must be personal to be religious. There are plenty of deeply religious people who don't believe in a personal God. The personal, human-like God is just one of many possible models.  

I have no problem with any of this, it's just that it doesn't match my own personal experience.

I am aware of an Intelligence out there- which is no part of me or my mind- who is looking out for my welfare and is able to change situations to help me achieve what I really need as opposed to what I may want.

That's my experience and I cannot speak for anyone else.

I think it is clear however that to create communication with people who see it as I do and people who see it as you do, we need some ability to "translate" between the personal and non-personal vocabularies or understand and account for a real difference in experiences.

But aside from this very pointed subjective discussion about how we experience this feeling as a personal "God" or not, I think we need to postulate that the OTHER feelings- peace, contentment, a sense of unity with the world, a sense of purpose, of enduring happiness and fulfillment are what life is about.

We need to acknowledge that we would all like to be in a family which could exist forever- either as a fantasy or a reality

We all need to acknowledge that we want to be the best kind of human being we can, that we need to love others as we love ourselves, and know that we as humans are all in this thing together and need to get our acts together and quit stomping on each other to get ahead.

I expect that traditionalists will have more problems with these linguistic shifts than others, but we who are believers in a personal God will have to learn how to translate our feelings objectively so that others can understand what we are talking about, by speaking about the "voice within" or "communicating with the best within ourselves" to communicate with those who do NOT verbally interpret these as a person.

Mormonism is not secularism and indeed THIS is the exact point of departure- whether or not we experience these as a "person" or not.  This is a valid distinction which legitimately separates us, but my point is that it is perhaps the ONLY one

If we can see how religion FUNCTIONS in our lives- as opposed to seeing these as "different beliefs" we will go a long way toward unity.  The FUNCTION of religious beliefs is the same for everyone regardless of whether we see a personal God as the source of these feelings.

But I think as Mormons we need to know how close we are to those who believe and see the world much as we do but do not acknowledge a personal God

And if we can convey this closeness to the secular world, I think there will be many who now think of themselves as secularists who really DO feel a personal presence "out there" but do not presently have the vocabulary to express it- will suddenly understand what they never understood before, and join us.

[mfbukowski]

50 minutes ago, Gray said:

When you play chess, of necessity you need to sacrifice some pieces to accomplish the aim of taking the opponent's king. That means that for God, the ends would justify the means. Not sure what MFB would think, just a thought I had. 

Surely you know that analogies used to express a single point do not have to apply to every other aspect of the analogy.

Don't you?   This is not really a chess game you know.

[mfbukowski]

45 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thats interesting.  So the greater good can be accomplished.  hmm, doesn't give much comfort for the genocides, famines, wars, and abuses around the world.  This ends must be pretty special to justify all that horrible suffering.  So sacrificing a piece (allowing for all this suffering) must have produced something positive that eventually leads to a win in the chess match. 

The point was an analogy about how God can use intelligence to anticipate any situation and adjust accordingly, as an alternate way to explain the inarticulate and confusing idea of "Omniscience"

But I guess this shows that any analogy can be made confusing.

This is what happens when we confuse linguistic descriptions with reality.  Truth is seeing things as they are- not getting confused by what is spoken.

Edited August 19, 2016 by mfbukowski

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

The point was an analogy about how God can use intelligence to anticipate any situation and adjust accordingly, as an alternate way to explain the inarticulate and confusing idea of "Omniscience"

But I guess this shows that any analogy can be made confusing.

This is what happens when we confuse linguistic descriptions with reality.  Truth is seeing things as they are- not getting confused by what is spoken.

Agreed that analogies can only be taken so far.  

Is there a satisfactory concept that you've found for God that addresses some of these problems?  

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

This is interesting, I still need to read some William James.  My initial reaction to this chess master idea is how does this account for the problem of evil question.  This chess master sounds like someone who could pull the strings of humanity like a puppet, but arbitrarily decides to allow suffering for what purpose?  I mentioned earlier that I don't think that Joseph's explanation that this is all for our experience is satisfactory to me.  If God can and does make chess moves to always create a winning scenario, why are so many people suffering and losing in this life.  What is the point and purpose of it all? 

Deists like to use the clock master idea, the concept that God wound a clock at the beginning of time, and that God doesn't get involved in everyday day life now, he just started the whole process in motion.  This seems like a better explanation to me to account for all the needless suffering.  But how does this compare to the William James analogy for a chess master?  

They are two different analogies

One allows for agency, the other does not.  God can interact with humanity in some situations while letting us mess up everything else on our own as much as we want.

If you find the analogies confusing, forget about them.  They are just analogies!  

Come to your own understanding!

[TheSkepticChristian]

41 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

This keeps getting better.

All I am saying is there is no evidence that religion makes a society more peaceful. In fact the most religious countries have very high homicide rates, it's true they are poor countries but notice religion doesn't lower the homicide rate. 

That's it! I am done! I won't reply to you anymore.  

Edited August 19, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

They are two different analogies

One allows for agency, the other does not.  God can interact with humanity in some situations while letting us mess up everything else on our own as much as we want.

If you find the analogies confusing, forget about them.  They are just analogies!  

Come to your own understanding!

I need to come up with my own concept then, and haven't arrived at it yet.  I have had personal experiences in the past where I've felt like God was interacting with me, or with people in my life.  At the same time, if God has this ability to intervene in the real world, then why does God allow such meaningless suffering for some, and intervene for others.  The Mormon answers to this question haven't satisfied me.

This has caused me to tend to believe in a God that can't interact in the world, and to reinterpret my earlier experiences that I attributed to God in a different way.  Ultimately, I'm not sure this is the right paradigm for God either, so I'm left feeling like my belief in God is somewhat tenuous.  I want to believe, but I don't want to believe in a God that will pick and choose who to help based on some silly rules that aren't fair.  

Edited August 19, 2016 by hope_for_things

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Agreed that analogies can only be taken so far.  

Is there a satisfactory concept that you've found for God that addresses some of these problems?  

The analogies work for me, but then I am a student of Wittgenstein and I know the limits of language.

I would suggest you read Wittgenstein's "Philosophical Investigations" and it could be a watershed book for you.

Understand that this book is not "philosophy" nor is it "about philosophy" in any conventional sense

It is a manual which will teach you how to think about language itself and how it functions in our lives

It is not a book you read but a workbook to think about.

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

The analogies work for me, but then I am a student of Wittgenstein and I know the limits of language.

I would suggest you read Wittgenstein's "Philosophical Investigations" and it could be a watershed book for you.

Understand that this book is not "philosophy" nor is it "about philosophy" in any conventional sense

It is a manual which will teach you how to think about language itself and how it functions in our lives

It is not a book you read but a workbook to think about.

Thanks, I'll check it out.  

[Gray]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Thats interesting.  So the greater good can be accomplished.  hmm, doesn't give much comfort for the genocides, famines, wars, and abuses around the world.  This ends must be pretty special to justify all that horrible suffering.  So sacrificing a piece (allowing for all this suffering) must have produced something positive that eventually leads to a win in the chess match. 

Yes, it's rather an unpleasant idea. I don't think of God like that. That system of morality would be terrible for any individual to follow. 

[thesometimesaint]

23 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I need to come up with my own concept then, and haven't arrived at it yet.  I have had personal experiences in the past where I've felt like God was interacting with me, or with people in my life.  At the same time, if God has this ability to intervene in the real world, then why does God allow such meaningless suffering for some, and intervene for others.  The Mormon answers to this question haven't satisfied me.

This has caused me to tend to believe in a God that can't interact in the world, and to reinterpret my earlier experiences that I attributed to God in a different way.  Ultimately, I'm not sure this is the right paradigm for God either, so I'm left feeling like my belief in God is somewhat tenuous.  I want to believe, but I don't want to believe in a God that will pick and choose who to help based on some silly rules that aren't fair.  

Since we in mortal life don't know what it is will be needed to experience in order to become like God. It is best we not judge God. Sometimes it is our suffering that helps others to become more like God through service to us.

[orangganjil]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't like thinking of God as a male anymore.  I find this too discriminatory to women.  This is part of why I don't like to think of God as a human person, because the God that I envision is a God that encompasses all the attributes of men and women equally, not a God that just represents one gender.  I think God also loves and appreciates all creation, animals and plants and mountains and rivers.  I think God loves all and understands and appreciates all of these things.  So thats part of why I can't put God into this box of a human form anymore, I think it limits my conception of God too much.  This is what resonates with me today, I'm not trying to prove anything is correct through appeals to scripture.  

I can see what you mean here. You reject labels, including the label of gender, for God. I think you're onto something here. Orthodox Mormons are inconsistent on this point. They maintain two, opposed viewpoints: 1) Gender, and gender characteristics, are eternal in nature; 2) Jesus, through the Atonement, understands all pain, suffering, thoughts, etc. for all people.

So, if Jesus truly understands all aspects of "maleness" as well as all aspects of "femaleness", why does his gender matter? If we boil it down, he understands all aspects of what it means to be a man as well as a woman. If it were otherwise, he wouldn't be able to succor everyone and his Atonement would become finite. In effect, Jesus took upon himself all labels - male, female, lesbian, gay, black, white, fat, skinny, smart, dumb, etc. - and when one has all labels ascribed to him/her, all labels become meaningless. Essentially, by taking all labels upon himself, he rendered labels meaningless.

To take it further, if we are to be come like Jesus, we too must take all labels upon us. Eventually, if I am to be like him, I too must fully understand what it means to be female. My wife must understand what it means to be male - in fullness. Otherwise, we can't be like God. In effect, gender becomes meaningless at that point and there are no eternal characteristics of gender. It is why that assertion in the Proclamation on the Family doesn't make any sense.