LDS Scientists Present Findings on the Science of Sexual Orientation

[Daniel2]

Last month, The University of Utah hosted noted LDS scientific (peer-reviewed-published) researcher, founder of the SARS vaccine, and biographer of David O. McKay, Gregory A. Prince. He's introduced here:

STERLING M. McMURRIN LECTURES ON RELIGION & CULTURE | ARCHIVE
September 27, 2017

Gregory A. Prince, Author & Historian
"Science vs. Dogma: Biology Challenges the LDS Paradigm" (click the following link to watch the hour-long presentation on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gssnz1W ... e=youtu.be)

Scientific researcher and historian Gregory A. Prince earned his graduate degrees in dentistry (DDS) and pathology (PhD) at UCLA. He then pursued a four-decade career in pediatric infectious disease research. His love of history led him to write three books, including the award-winning David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism. Most recently, he has published Leonard Arrington and the Writing of Mormon History.

Until the late 1960s, when the Stonewall Riots in New York City brought LGBT issues into the public square, the consensus among clinicians, scientists, legislators, and religious leaders was that homosexuality was either an unfortunate choice that could be unchosen, or a disease that could—and must—be cured. As the field of molecular biology matured, there was a spirited hunt for a genetic explanation for homosexuality—the “gay gene.”

In the short term, failure to find such a gene reinforced the “choice paradigm” of homosexuality. However, recent research has shown that a combination of genetic and (mostly) epigenetic factors act during fetal development to imprint sexual preference and gender identity indelibly within the brain. Prince argues that the “biology paradigm” calls for a reassessment of Latter-day Saint doctrines, policies, and attitudes towards homosexuality, all of which were built on a foundation of the “choice paradigm.”

“Greg Prince’s unique perspective,” says Tanner Center director Bob Goldberg, “combines scientific knowledge with humanistic sensibilities. This insures that his insights will offer new ways of understanding matters that touch us all.”

For those that prefer to read the transcript, rather than watch the video, the transcript can be found here:

https://www.docdroid.net/yax0x1W/prince ... e-copy.pdf

Dr. Prince's findings directly contradict those on this board that refute and seek to reject the biological (genetic and epigenetic) determinative factors of sexual orientation, but he also goes farther by placing the search to understand sexual orientation into the historical, theological framework of evolving LDS doctrine and policies.

I expect some will find something of value here, and some will reject it, but I felt it was at least important to share for those that are interested in what LDS scientists are saying.

In future posts, I'll attempt to share what other LDS scientists and professionals are saying about the science of sexual orientation, as well.

[Crackers]

Whether homosexuality is biologically based is a complete non-issue to me. People are born with all sorts of conditions and trials that are given to test and to teach us. Being born with something doesn't indicate you are meant to be that way in eternity. Some people are born with two heads or with their organs on the outside. Some people are born with conditions that allow them to live only a few hours outside of the womb. Some people are born with severe mental or emotional disorders. Even if homosexuality is biologically based, that doesn't mean it is behavior that HF wants you to nuture and act on. It is just used as an excuse to validate behavior.

[Ezra]

The question is also what is normal?

The answer is males are male females are female.

The normal is they are the counterpart of the other.

If things are outside the normal. It's not a question of acceptance but cause.

I believe that the abnormalities are due to the choices we have made as humans. Crappy diets. Bombarding our body's with radio frequencys from the electrical grid,cell phones and other devices that send and receive signals. Drugs, alcohol and the junk that's in modern medicine all has an effect on us. And that effect is abnormalities in the way our body's are supposed to function. It's just getting compounded from generation to generation.

Why did in the days of Noah people live for hundreds of years?

Why are there still examples of this from people who eat super healthy and live super healthy lifestyles?

256 year old man.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Ching-Yuen



This to me shouldn't be some secret that scientists can't seem to figure out. This should be common sense.

We are changing ourselves by poor decisions.

Gay is natures way of ending a bloodline

[kittycat51]

Although the research is interesting, as soon as I read "Prince argues that the “biology paradigm” calls for a reassessment of Latter-day Saint doctrines, policies, and attitudes towards homosexuality, all of which were built on a foundation of the “choice paradigm.” I figured Prince really isn't an active member or he just doesn't get it. To change church "doctrines, policies and attitudes towards homosexuality" goes against what God dictates, not man's personal interest or desires. Also concerning when Prince states "attitudes towards homosexuality", we can and do love the sinner without loving the sin. I believe most people in the church feel this way. I have a gay uncle and several gay cousins. I love them to death and don't shun them even though I don't agree with how they live their lives.

[David13]

Although the research is interesting, as soon as I read "Prince argues that the “biology paradigm” calls for a reassessment of Latter-day Saint doctrines, policies, and attitudes towards homosexuality, all of which were built on a foundation of the “choice paradigm.” I figured Prince really isn't an active member or he just doesn't get it. To change church "doctrines, policies and attitudes towards homosexuality" goes against what God dictates, not man's personal interest or desires. Also concerning when Prince states "attitudes towards homosexuality", we can and do love the sinner without loving the sin. I believe most people in the church feel this way. I have a gay uncle and several gay cousins. I love them to death and don't shun them even though I don't agree with how they live their lives.

Kinda sorta makes it sound exactly like political propaganda, and not science at all, doesn't it.
dc

Or, to put it another way, another hocus pocus science magician.

[Robin Hood]

So a degree in dentistry, another in pathology, followed by a 40 year career in pediatric infectious disease research, qualify this man as an authority in the field of genetics.
How does that work?

[gradles21]

I met Dr Prince on my mission in DC, he fed us dinner and helped us out with an investigator that had issues with the pearl of great price. He is very smart and knowledgeable but him and his wife are stone cold leftists and Mormon apologists. His wife was very anxious to chew me and my companion out and calling us racists just because we mentioned that we had a "black investigator". Long story short he has his own agenda and I'd take everything he says with a grain of salt, and his wife is a wench.

[larsenb]

With the statement: “However, recent research has shown that a combination of genetic and (mostly) epigenetic factors act during fetal development to imprint sexual preference and gender identity indelibly within the brain.” could imply that there may be developmental processes that could be disrupted by various other stressors that may have a permanent effect on the brain, as well.

And why limit such imprinting to just “fetal development”. There are a whole range of hormonally/genetically driven processes that take place during the entire growth cycle, at least through puberty and into a human’s mid-twenties.

What kind of environmental, etc., stressors might influence and disrupt these processes during this time?

I hope Prince realizes that the scope and focus of his particular findings don’t preclude other possibilities. And if he doesn’t realize this, he’s out to lunch.

He also seems to be ignoring the category of practicing homosexuals who were sexually entrained during their adolescence (mainly early adolescence) by older, predatory homosexuals. This class simply became addicted to easy sexual gratification via same-sex activity. They didn’t necessarily have same-sex attraction before they were introduced/compelled into this life-style.

Sorry, but I'm left wondering just what Prince's sexual orientation is. Homosexuals are, by-and-large, very much wanting to find a strictly biological cause, and one could say excuse, for their behavior.

[larsenb]

I met Dr Prince on my mission in DC, he fed us dinner and helped us out with an investigator that had issues with the pearl of great price. He is very smart and knowledgeable but him and his wife are stone cold liberals and apologists. His wife was very anxious to chew me and my companion out and calling us racists just because we mentioned that we had a "black investigator". Long story short he has his own agenda and I'd take everything he says with a grain of salt, and his wife is a wench.

This is certainly a class of people who also support the idea that 'homosexuality' is strictly genetic, and would excoriate anyone not buying into it.

[sandman45]

Although the research is interesting, as soon as I read "Prince argues that the “biology paradigm” calls for a reassessment of Latter-day Saint doctrines, policies, and attitudes towards homosexuality, all of which were built on a foundation of the “choice paradigm.” I figured Prince really isn't an active member or he just doesn't get it. To change church "doctrines, policies and attitudes towards homosexuality" goes against what God dictates, not man's personal interest or desires. Also concerning when Prince states "attitudes towards homosexuality", we can and do love the sinner without loving the sin. I believe most people in the church feel this way. I have a gay uncle and several gay cousins. I love them to death and don't shun them even though I don't agree with how they live their lives.

Agreed. A lot of the Scientism is religious in a way and they I believe are trying to come up with an academic way of saying we really don't have Agency at all... which is the plan of the devil..

This is another way to attack God and Hide him with "Science"

[oneClimbs]

Whether homosexuality is biologically based is a complete non-issue to me. People are born with all sorts of conditions and trials that are given to test and to teach us. Being born with something doesn't indicate you are meant to be that way in eternity. Some people are born with two heads or with their organs on the outside. Some people are born with conditions that allow them to live only a few hours outside of the womb. Some people are born with severe mental or emotional disorders. Even if homosexuality is biologically based, that doesn't mean it is behavior that HF wants you to nuture and act on. It is just used as an excuse to validate behavior.

I second what Crackers has said. Remember, God says himself in Ether 12:27 that it is he that is the author of weakness, he gives them to us for a purpose. We all have a weakness that causes us to fall short of the Glory of God. Weakness is not sin. It is not a sin to be attracted sexually to people of the opposite sex, but it also doesn't matter what string of events or biological circumstances resulted in those attractions. Can a married man be attracted to someone other than his wife? Yes, but is that a sin? No, it isn't. Is taking that attraction and dwelling upon it, lusting after that someone other than his wife a sin? Yes, it is.

Attractions are what they are, something that draws our attention. Beauty is attractive and we all have different definitions of beauty. Personally, I love the taste of brisket and beef, I was raised in and still live in Texas. But back in 2011 I gave it up because I studied D&C 89, all the dietary laws God has given man (that we know of) and every quote I could find from general authorities of the church. I felt that my consumption should be based on need rather than want and I voluntary changed my ways. The attraction still exists, I don't think it tastes gross at all, quite the opposite. But it is no longer a temptation for me because as I studied doctrine and made a choice, I found a better way. I realize that this is not a 1 to 1 match to the situation of many who struggle with SSA, but I quite often feel very isolate in my culture and family because of my choices.

I just went on a dove hunt here in Texas with 30 men and didn't kill anything or eat any of the Barbecue. When certain people realized that I wasn't shooting they acted very uncomfortable around me and personally the whole thing was uncomfortable for me as well (2nd year I've been invited to go and have gone because of family). Now I didn't make a big deal out of my situation, I didn't parade it around or ask to be accepted. I respected their choices and I'll bet most of them had no idea that I didn't shoot anything. I also chose to eat last so I could fill my plate with green beans, corn, potatoes, bread, beans and more. What I was doing was certainly odd for them (as it would have been for me earlier in my life) but what I am doing is doctrinal, I can make a case for it. I changed my actions after being informed by scripture and the words of God's servants.

My point here is that attraction doesn't trump choice.

A lot of people are attracted to things that could result in sin or transgression if acted upon. Should we be attracted to violent movies? Many are, even us as Latter-day Saints. Of this, Isaiah wrote:

They who conduct themselves righteously
and are honest in word,
who disdain extortion
and stay their hand from taking bribes,
who stop their ears at the mention of murder,
who shut their eyes at the sight of wickedness.
(Isaiah 33:15)

All behavior is not justifiable on the basis that attractions exist.

Unholy attractions trouble all of us, not just a select few. Here is Nephi:

O wretched man that I am! Yea, my heart sorroweth because of my flesh; my soul grieveth because of mine iniquities. I am encompassed about, because of the temptations and the sins which do so easily beset me. And when I desire to rejoice, my heart groaneth because of my sins; (2 Nephi 4:17-19)

So Nephi has strong temptations that he has given into and feels very guilty about it. This is not unlike many who struggle with SSA. But after pondering these points, Nephi's perspective changes and he asks himself some great questions:

…if the Lord in his condescension unto the children of men hath visited men in so much mercy, why should my heart weep and my soul linger in the valley of sorrow, and my flesh waste away, and my strength slacken, because of mine afflictions? And why should I yield to sin, because of my flesh? Yea, why should I give way to temptations, that the evil one have place in my heart to destroy my peace and afflict my soul? (vs. 26-27)

Today, Nephi probably would have been told, "Don't be sad, Nephi, just be who you really are! God made you that way, there is no need to feel so depressed!" Nephi, however, realizes the power of his own choice. He realizes that he doesn't have to yield just because of his flesh, this is a really significant point here.

Here are what the words "temptation" and "entice" mean:

Temptation: The act of tempting; enticement to evil by arguments, by flattery, or by the offer of some real or apparent good.
Entice: To incite or instigate, by exciting hope or desire; usually in a bad sense; as, to entice one to evil. Hence, to seduce; to lead astray; to induce to sin, by promises or persuasions.

Later on, Nephi teaches the following:

O, my beloved brethren, remember the awfulness in transgressing against that Holy God, and also the awfulness of yielding to the enticings of that cunning one. Remember, to be carnally-minded is death, and to be spiritually-minded is life eternal.

O, my beloved brethren, give ear to my words. Remember the greatness of the Holy One of Israel. Do not say that I have spoken hard things against you; for if ye do, ye will revile against the truth; for I have spoken the words of your Maker. I know that the words of truth are hard against all uncleanness; but the righteous fear them not, for they love the truth and are not shaken.

O then, my beloved brethren, come unto the Lord, the Holy One. Remember that his paths are righteous. Behold, the way for man is narrow, but it lieth in a straight course before him…” (2 Nephi 9:39-41)

Note that it is the YIELDING to the enticings where the evil comes in. Satan is evil because he entices us to do evil or to give in to our weaknesses. We do evil and commit sin or transgression when we choose to follow his enticings instead of God and his paths. And finally, let's not forget this principle...

Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. (Luke 22:42)

God doesn't remove Jesus' cup. It is necessary that has fulfills his mission with all the suffering that will attend it. Jesus asks for the cup to be removed and though it isn't, that doesn't matter, Jesus is willing to do God's will no matter what anyway.

This is a far cry from what we see taught today. All of these things are ignored and any justification is used to demand that a particular attraction be completely accepted and doctrine changed for no other reason than our own philosophical purposes. No one who demands these doctrinal changes will make a doctrinal case for their argument because it doesn't exist. This is why you will never see people arguing the cause of SSA and SSM ever quoting scripture. They are looking for truth elsewhere, anything that will give authority to their argument because there is none in scripture. Again, here's Nephi:

O Lord, I have trusted in thee, and I will trust in thee forever. I will not put my trust in the arm of flesh; for I know that cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh. Yea, cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm. (2 Nephi 4:34)

So collect all the studies you want to and put them in the biggest binder you can find. If what you are teaching has no basis in doctrine, you are doing the definition of making flesh your arm.

[Joel]

His view on how continuing revelation will shape doctrine in the coming years:

If top-down change—that is, full embrace of a biological paradigm with its logical consequences—is unlikely, is there a plausible alternative for change? I believe there is, and it comes in the form of social justice—in essence, a bottom-up force for change. Perhaps the most potent force—although one needs patience for this one—will be the maturation of Millennials who simply reject the status quo. As these church members—assuming they hang around long enough—move up through the hierarchical pyramid, they are likely to bring along their worldview and challenge not only policies, but also doctrines. They will be emboldened by an increasingly informative body of scientific knowledge about homosexuality, by the fact that doctrinal change has been a fact of life for Mormonism since its founding, and by a profound sense of social justice that will no longer allow injury or death to one of the church’s most vulnerable constituencies. If they take the time to read their own history, they will understand that not a single, significant LDS doctrine has gone unchanged throughout the entire history of the church, and when they come to that understanding, they will look forward instead of backward, embrace fully the foundational concept of continuing revelation—“line upon line”—and institute change at the most fundamental level.

[Joel]

I met Dr Prince on my mission in DC, he fed us dinner ... and his wife is a wench.

Ellipses makes your post more fun

[oneClimbs]

His view on how continuing revelation will shape doctrine in the coming years:

If top-down change—that is, full embrace of a biological paradigm with its logical consequences—is unlikely, is there a plausible alternative for change? I believe there is, and it comes in the form of social justice—in essence, a bottom-up force for change. Perhaps the most potent force—although one needs patience for this one—will be the maturation of Millennials who simply reject the status quo. As these church members—assuming they hang around long enough—move up through the hierarchical pyramid, they are likely to bring along their worldview and challenge not only policies, but also doctrines. They will be emboldened by an increasingly informative body of scientific knowledge about homosexuality, by the fact that doctrinal change has been a fact of life for Mormonism since its founding, and by a profound sense of social justice that will no longer allow injury or death to one of the church’s most vulnerable constituencies. If they take the time to read their own history, they will understand that not a single, significant LDS doctrine has gone unchanged throughout the entire history of the church, and when they come to that understanding, they will look forward instead of backward, embrace fully the foundational concept of continuing revelation—“line upon line”—and institute change at the most fundamental level.

That may be true for politics, but in the church revelations will build on top of each other. False teachings and errors fall to the wayside but doctrines are eternal and unchanging. When he says that "not a single, significant LDS doctrine has gone unchanged" that is very vague. What constitutes "significant" doctrine? I'd like to see that list. Secondly, what does unchanged mean? If new light is added to an existing doctrine that doesn't change the doctrine. I'd like to see some examples of "significant doctrines" that have been changed in a manner that would be as extreme as equating simulated sexs acts to actual procreation.

The two examples I could see trotted out are the priesthood restriction and polygamy. I would argue though that those changes did not affect the underlying doctrines of the priesthood and marriage. The principles of marriage were stated before polygamy was ever involved and they still exist after polygamy has been rooted out. The order of the priesthood was originally established with worthy men ordained before the policy restriction came under Brigham's presidency and that order is the same after that policy was rejected. Water is used today instead of wine with the sacrament, but the ordinance is still the same and means the same things.

So what changes are you talking about Gregory Prince? I'm not saying that there haven't been changes of any kind but I detect a straw man here.

To "change" what marriage is you are going to have to gut virtually all the standard works going back to Genesis. The male-female dynamic of complementary opposition is the foundation of all human life. In the beginning, Adam was a single being that was divided in two, a male and a female.

When rejoined in the covenant of marriage, they were both called "Adam" once again: "Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created." (Genesis 5:2-3) This relationship allows for co-creation and is the vehicle that allows the entire plan of happiness from premoral, to mortal, and postmortal life to continue. To suggest that this will legitimately change is simply ludicrous.

To suggest that the church will teach people that it is ok to live anything lesser than celestial law is absurd. It would be like us setting up a new gospel doctrine class for people who desire to inherit the telestial kingdom. If what Gregory Prince suggests comes to pass then the church will have become susceptible to being led by the arm of flesh instead of God. Because as he notes, there is no revelation as the source of the change he foresees, it will happen because people make it happen. D&C 107 anticipates such a circumstance as this:

"And in case that any decision of these quorums is made in unrighteousness, it may be brought before a general assembly of the several quorums, which constitute the spiritual authorities of the church..." (D&C 107:32) Yes, and even the president of the church can do wrong: "And inasmuch as a President of the High Priesthood shall transgress...Thus, none shall be exempted from the justice and the laws of God, that all things may be done in order and in solemnity before him, according to truth and righteousness." (D&C 107:82,84)

Gregory Prince is suggesting is that secular theory should and will trump eternal doctrines. That shouldn't fill people with hope, that should scare the crap out of them.

[Ezra]

His view on how continuing revelation will shape doctrine in the coming years:

If top-down change—that is, full embrace of a biological paradigm with its logical consequences—is unlikely, is there a plausible alternative for change? I believe there is, and it comes in the form of social justice—in essence, a bottom-up force for change. Perhaps the most potent force—although one needs patience for this one—will be the maturation of Millennials who simply reject the status quo. As these church members—assuming they hang around long enough—move up through the hierarchical pyramid, they are likely to bring along their worldview and challenge not only policies, but also doctrines. They will be emboldened by an increasingly informative body of scientific knowledge about homosexuality, by the fact that doctrinal change has been a fact of life for Mormonism since its founding, and by a profound sense of social justice that will no longer allow injury or death to one of the church’s most vulnerable constituencies. If they take the time to read their own history, they will understand that not a single, significant LDS doctrine has gone unchanged throughout the entire history of the church, and when they come to that understanding, they will look forward instead of backward, embrace fully the foundational concept of continuing revelation—“line upon line”—and institute change at the most fundamental level.

Social justic is evil.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFjmUzA ... ture=share


Short video explaining why social justic is evil.

[Joel]

If you get a response on what his list is on what he considers as significant please share, listening to him, he seems like the type of guy that would be a grammar nazi. I have been many different gospel doctrine classes where people go off on punctuation rules and interpreting different scriptures.

yeah, yeah I get it



Charles Harrell's book does an excellent job showing how doctrine has evolved, it is not a comprehensive treatment though.

[David13]

This guy is just an evil character. And he purports to speak for, about or on behalf of LDS. That's extra evil.
It's all political agenda. Not science.
dc

[Elizabeth]

http://www.gopusa.com/?p=32072?omhide=true

"Students at Grand County High School in Utah were supposed to attend poetry slam workshops on tolerance and acceptance. Instead, students were subjected to political rhetoric, LGBT propaganda and something called “identity mapping.”
Parents told the Todd Starnes Show that one of the workshop leaders announced to the children, “I’m queer and I’m Trump’s worst enemy.”
An untold number of students were directed by workshop leaders to separate themselves intro groups based on their sexual identity and their religious preference.
Parents told the Todd Starnes Show they are livid over the September event.
“I’m sending my daughter to school to get an education, not to learn about the LGBTQ community,” one parent said.
Supt. J.T. Stroder told the Todd Starnes Show the presentations were made to the entire student body during English class by poets connected to Moab Pride, a local LGBT organisation.
“There were some inappropriate examples used in those presentations – asking students to identify certain things about themselves that is protected by law,” the superintendent admitted.
He sent a letter to parents detailing his concerns about what happened at the high school.
“I would not expect an exercise in which individual students are asked to reveal their sexual orientation and gender identity to be part of the English curriculum,” he wrote. “In this case, there was no parent notification that topics relating to sexuality would be discussed outside the approved health curriculum, which was not acceptable.”
Parents want to know why the Moab Pride group was allowed inside the high school and why teachers did not intervene when the group began to solicit personal information from the children.
“I really don’t have an explanation,” the superintendent said. “It caught the school off guard.”
One parent, who asked not to be identified, told me students were divided up by religion, sexual preference and political views.
“Their intention was to plant seeds in the high school. They were trying to indoctrinate the kids. When you have people saying ‘I’m a queer and it’s okay. I’m a lesbian and it’s okay’ – I mean – that’s indoctrination,” the parent told me.
As for the workshop where kids were forced to engage in identity mapping?
“I don’t know what that means,” the superintendent said.
Regardless, the school district said the presenters will not be invited back to the school.
“Every child that walks into that school has to feel safe no matter what their religious views are or their sexual preference,” a parent said. “Instead of it being anti-bullying, the workshops directed pointed them out.”
The folks in Grand County, Utah just learned a very important lesson about the sex and gender revolutionaries. They preach tolerance and acceptance, but the revolutionaries don’t practice what they preach."

[captainfearnot]

If you get a response on what his list is on what he considers as significant please share, listening to him, he seems like the type of guy that would be a grammar nazi.

We prefer the term "pedant," thank you very much.

[Fiannan]

I am so confused. If a man doesn't date a transgender woman, even one with a penis, the trend is to label him a bigot. But if he has relations with such a person he is essentially having sex with a man who may have breast implants. So how does that factor into this whole "born that way" thing? The SJWs say that what counts is that the transgender who was born a man is a woman if said person identifies themselves as such. So if that is the case couldn't a heterosexual woman who likes a gay man tell him she identifies with being a man and thus when they have relations then it will be a homosexual act?

[Thinker]

Gregory A. Prince.

Gregory Prince lost credibility in my eyes when he used ad homenim attack logical fallacy by calling an lds church leader "homophobic" simply because he said, "Homosexuality is an ugly sin."

Another ridiculous thing he tried to argue is that since animals sometimes engage in homosexual behavior - it makes it ok for humans to.
So, along this illogical reasoning, because animals sometimes eat their young, it's ok for humans too.

"Science vs. Dogma

LOL His lecture is full of dogma: "principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true."
It's like he's saying, "I say that your lds prophet was homophobic and thus not worth listening to thus it must be true."
And "I and another dogmatic person say that animal behavior can justify human behavior so it must be true."

In the short term, failure to find such a gene reinforced the “choice paradigm” of homosexuality. However, recent research has shown that a combination of genetic and (mostly) epigenetic factors act during fetal development to imprint sexual preference and gender identity indelibly within the brain.

Oh, really? Please explain exactly what these specific "epigenetic factors" are - which supposedly cause an infant boy to desire anal sex over vaginal sex.
Sounds a bit more like the pedophilia movement to me.

[Thinker]

I am so confused. If a man doesn't date a transgender woman, even one with a penis, the trend is to label him a bigot. But if he has relations with such a person he is essentially having sex with a man who may have breast implants. So how does that factor into this whole "born that way" thing? The SJWs say that what counts is that the transgender who was born a man is a woman if said person identifies themselves as such. So if that is the case couldn't a heterosexual woman who likes a gay man tell him she identifies with being a man and thus when they have relations then it will be a homosexual act?

Yeah - I've wondered about things like a man dressing up as a woman dating a woman dressing up as a man - win win!

The problem with leftist ideologies like "born that way" is that they dig themselves into a hole - if everyone is born that way - then pedophiles and rapists are born that way too. So feministas who tend to back leftist ideologies must accept rape as being something the rapists cannot help - just as other deviated sexual preferences are supposedly. Of course, this is essentially EVIL - attempting to pretend we have no free agency.

[e-eye2.0]

My thoughts are that we all have trials and some of those we are born with and others come because of choices by our self or others. Some people may have been born gay and fight the challenge but many others through abuse or some other reason have moved that direction. Maybe I am wrong maybe nobody is born with tendencies but as for us and our 5 kids we had their personalities somewhat figured out when they were in the womb just by their movement - Many of our tendencies we were born with.

[JohnnyL]

Last month, The University of Utah hosted noted LDS scientific (peer-reviewed-published) researcher, founder of the SARS vaccine, and biographer of David O. McKay, Gregory A. Prince. He's introduced here:

STERLING M. McMURRIN LECTURES ON RELIGION & CULTURE | ARCHIVE
September 27, 2017

Gregory A. Prince, Author & Historian
"Science vs. Dogma: Biology Challenges the LDS Paradigm" (click the following link to watch the hour-long presentation on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gssnz1W ... e=youtu.be)

Scientific researcher and historian Gregory A. Prince earned his graduate degrees in dentistry (DDS) and pathology (PhD) at UCLA. He then pursued a four-decade career in pediatric infectious disease research. His love of history led him to write three books, including the award-winning David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism. Most recently, he has published Leonard Arrington and the Writing of Mormon History.

Until the late 1960s, when the Stonewall Riots in New York City brought LGBT issues into the public square, the consensus among clinicians, scientists, legislators, and religious leaders was that homosexuality was either an unfortunate choice that could be unchosen, or a disease that could—and must—be cured. As the field of molecular biology matured, there was a spirited hunt for a genetic explanation for homosexuality—the “gay gene.”

In the short term, failure to find such a gene reinforced the “choice paradigm” of homosexuality. However, recent research has shown that a combination of genetic and (mostly) epigenetic factors act during fetal development to imprint sexual preference and gender identity indelibly within the brain. Prince argues that the “biology paradigm” calls for a reassessment of Latter-day Saint doctrines, policies, and attitudes towards homosexuality, all of which were built on a foundation of the “choice paradigm.”

“Greg Prince’s unique perspective,” says Tanner Center director Bob Goldberg, “combines scientific knowledge with humanistic sensibilities. This insures that his insights will offer new ways of understanding matters that touch us all.”

For those that prefer to read the transcript, rather than watch the video, the transcript can be found here:

https://www.docdroid.net/yax0x1W/prince ... e-copy.pdf

Dr. Prince's findings directly contradict those on this board that refute and seek to reject the biological (genetic and epigenetic) determinative factors of sexual orientation, but he also goes farther by placing the search to understand sexual orientation into the historical, theological framework of evolving LDS doctrine and policies.

I expect some will find something of value here, and some will reject it, but I felt it was at least important to share for those that are interested in what LDS scientists are saying.

In future posts, I'll attempt to share what other LDS scientists and professionals are saying about the science of sexual orientation, as well.

As soon as I saw "Gregory Prince", I had 100% ability to foretell what the finding was.