LDS Scientist/Biographer Presents Findings on the Science of Sexual Orientation

[Daniel2]

 

In the video above, 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"

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-mcmurrin-lecture-gregory-a-prince-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 what he says, but I felt it was worth sharing for those that are interested in what at least some LDS scientists are saying.

 

[Duncan]

I just scrolled through a tidbit of the paper he makes a good point about why does homosexuality keep happening over time, if not genetic?

[Button Gwinnett]

I recently listened to the new Trib Mormon themed podcast interview of the Tooele transgender Stake President who was recently excommunicated.  She insists that she has always, for as long as she can remember been female in a male body.  She firmly believes in the Family a Proclamation wherein it is stated that gender is eternal, she just believes that her eternal gender is female and that following the resurrection she will be resurrected as a female.

As someone who was born male and has never had to struggle making my identity fit with societal expectations, I feel for her.  I can't imagine the challenge of having been born female in a male body.  But then God's ways are not our ways. We each have our crosses to bear, but this would have been an unimaginably heavy cross to bear.  I have much compassion for those in this situation and wish there was a path forward for  those who wish to remain in the church. But I fear that the current choice is a toxic one for them as things stand today.

I applaud Greg Prince for having the courage to start the important conversations that will need to take place for the church to move forward and address the needs of these members of the church, but following Elder Oaks conference address, I also fear that the stake has been driven deep into the ground.  He has made it even more difficult for the church to move past its current policy.

Edited October 18, 2017 by Button Gwinnett

[clarkgoble]

I'd just note that the evidence he's appealing to (which has been discussed here) is pretty weak. I think there's ultimately a genetic component to all this but the epigenetic study isn't strong and hasn't been replicated. Also saying it's in the brain seems a bit silly since of course it's in the brain. That really tells us little about how open to choice or change something is though. After all there's lot of behaviors that are obviously tied to the brain, have a genetic component, are hard to change by force of will, yet are changeable. (For the record I think that for at least a sizable group of people with homosexual attraction it's not really changeable by any means we're aware of)

We really don't know much about how the brain works and even things that are far better understood than homosexual causes really aren't well understood. Look at something like addiction. We really don't know why some people get addicted to things like gambling or drugs more than others. We know there are strong genetic components for some people's propensities but not really why those genes do it. We know there are brain structures often associated with addiction, but not really what those structures mean or whether they are causal. We don't know why some highly liked experiences aren't addictive while others are. If we don't know any of those things for behaviors we have a fair bit of data for, the level of our knowledge of the cognitive basis of homosexuality is basically close to zero. I'd certainly be careful drawing theological implications from it.

Edited October 18, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Bob Crockett]

It's choice.  I realize that isn't the right thing to say in most circles, but as I have pointed out many times there are very good men (and women) with homosexual desires who are strong in the church and have families.  They choose to adhere.  And some slip.  They choose to slip.  Choice is the ultimate determinant.

As to desire, decades ago Masters and Johnson wrote that homosexual desire is on a continuum.   Many to most men have some homosexual desire, however latent.  Just like the desire to commit heinous acts or extremely altruistic acts is a desire on a long continuum.  To some extent, I believe, the desire to commit homosexual acts, heinous acts or extremely altruistic acts is driven by, I agree, proclivities that one is born with, but it is also driven by simple game theory.

But, in the end, it is choice.  Do you know of men who have had many children and then in middle age leave their families and engage in a homosexual lifestyle?  I do.  How about the reverse?  I know of some as well. 

In a free society, we may join a religion which helps us control those impulses and channel desire through male-female marriage.  Or, we can move to West Hollywood and club 5 nights a week.   It is freedom; it is choice.

I have never seen any science to say that it is not a choice.  Having naturally blonde hair is not a choice.  Deciding to engage in homosexual acts in a West Hollywood club is a choice. 

Further, mistrust anybody who uses senseless jargon.   "Challenges the LDS paradigm."  What is that paradigm and where may I read it?

Edited October 18, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[Danzo]

Nevermind

Edited October 18, 2017 by Danzo

[Button Gwinnett]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

It's choice.  I realize that isn't the right thing to say in most circles, but as I have pointed out many times there are very good men (and women) with homosexual desires who are strong in the church and have families.  They choose to adhere.  And some slip.  They choose to slip.  Choice is the ultimate determinant.

As to desire, decades ago Masters and Johnson wrote that homosexual desire is on a continuum.   Many to most men have some homosexual desire, however latent.  Just like the desire to commit heinous acts or extremely altruistic acts is a desire on a long continuum.  To some extent, I believe, the desire to commit homosexual acts, heinous acts or extremely altruistic acts is driven by, I agree, proclivities that one is born with, but it is also driven by simple game theory.

But, in the end, it is choice.  Do you know of men who have had many children and then in middle age leave their families and engage in a homosexual lifestyle?  I do.  How about the reverse?  I know of some as well. 

In a free society, we may join a religion which helps us control those impulses and channel desire through male-female marriage.  Or, we can move to West Hollywood and club 5 nights a week.   It is freedom; it is choice.

I have never seen any science to say that it is not a choice.  Having naturally blonde hair is not a choice.  Deciding to engage in homosexual acts in a West Hollywood club is a choice. 

Further, mistrust anybody who uses senseless jargon.   "Challenges the LDS paradigm."  What is that paradigm and where may I read it?

Not to delve into your personal life, but would you be so kind as to share with this board when you "Chose" to be a heterosexual man?  (I'm making an assumption here) Thinking back, I just can't recall ever making such a choice, I just always was heterosexual.  So please enlighten all of us. Thanks

Edited October 18, 2017 by Button Gwinnett

[thesometimesaint]

We really don't know the causes of homosexuality. If it is a choice, and that's a big IF, then it occurs between the ages of 2-5 years old. From an evolutionary standpoint it is a dead end. As there is no reproductive advantage to it.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Quote

From an evolutionary standpoint it is a dead end. As there is no reproductive advantage to it.

While this may be true at an individual level, it isn't necessarily true at a population level. Why? Let's say that the issue is an attraction to a specific sex (instead of a more general notion of same-sex attraction). Suppose there is a mechanism that increases sexual attraction to men. As long as it only surfaces in the women in a population, there would be a reproductive advantage to it. Only when this same mechanism surfaces in men, would it lose its reproductive advantage. But at a population level, as long as there were sufficiently more women who had this mechanism than men, on the whole, it becomes an evolutionary plus and not a dead end. And so it would persist within a population even though some of those who have this mechanism wouldn't pass it along.

 

[thesometimesaint]

While women can be homosexuals acting on that too is an evolutionary dead end. Until the artificial insemination of human females was established at best they would have to be Bi-Sexual.

[Benjamin McGuire]

It works the same way for women. The whole notion that it is an evolutionary dead-end is based on an assumption that the mechanism only has one function (of creating same-sex attraction) instead of having more than one outcome - where it as an evolutionary benefit most of the time, and only occasionally works in the other direction.

Edited October 18, 2017 by Benjamin McGuire

[smac97]

5 hours ago, Duncan said:

I just scrolled through a tidbit of the paper he makes a good point about why does homosexuality keep happening over time, if not genetic?

Another person who raised that "good point" is . . . Elder Dallin H. Oaks.  More than twenty years ago:

Quote

We live in a time of accelerating scientific discoveries about the human body. We know that our inheritance explains many of our physical characteristics. At the same time, we also know that our behavior is profoundly influenced by psychosocial factors such as parental and sibling relationships (especially during the formative years) and the culture in which we live. The debate over whether, or the extent to which, specific behavior is attributable to “nature” or to “nurture” is centuries old. Its application to the subject of same-sex feelings and behaviors is only one manifestation of a highly complex subject on which scientific knowledge is still in its infancy.

Some scientists deny that behavior is genetically influenced.  Others are advocates of evidence or theories suggesting that “there is substantial evidence for genetic influence on sexual orientation.” 

...

In any emerging area of knowledge, a new source of evidence is most welcome. In July 1993, Dr. Dean Hamer made worldwide headlines when he announced that he had found “a statistically significant correlation between the inheritance of genetic markers [an identifiable strip of DNA] on chromosomal region Xq28 and sexual orientation in a selected group of … homosexual men and their relatives over age 18.” In other words, “it appears that Xq28 contains a gene that contributes to homosexual orientation in males.” 15 Putting the most positive interpretation on his discovery, Dr. Hamer’s subsequent book concludes:

“We can make only educated guesses about the importance of Xq28 in the population at large. On the high side, the region couldn’t possibly influence more than 67 percent of gay men, the proportion ‘linked’ to this region in our highly selected group of gay siblings. On the low side, if much of homosexuality is caused by environmental factors, or by a large number of interacting genes, Xq28 could account for as little as a few percent of the variation in male sexual orientation. The median range, taken from our linkage data and from the available twin and family studies, suggests that Xq28 plays some role in about 5 to 30 percent of gay men. The broad range of these estimates is proof that much more work remains to be done.” 

“Some role in about 5 to 30 percent” of self-classified “gay” men surely falls far short of justifying the claim that science has shown that “homosexuality” is “caused by” genetic inheritance. One eminent scientist identified two of the uncertainties:

“What evidence exists thus far of innate biological traits underlying homosexuality is flawed. … Confirmation of genetic research purporting to show that homosexuality is heritable makes clear neither what is inherited nor how it influences sexual orientation.” 

In their impressive reappraisal of biologic theories of human sexual orientation, Drs. Byne and Parsons of Columbia University’s Department of Psychiatry offer these important cautions and suggestions:

“It is imperative that clinicians and behavioral scientists begin to appreciate the complexities of sexual orientation and resist the urge to search for simplistic explanations, either psychosocial or biologic.

“Conspicuously absent from most theorizing on the origins of sexual orientation is an active role of the individual in constructing his or her identity. … We propose an interactional model in which genes or hormones do not specify sexual orientation per se, but instead bias particular personality traits and thereby influence the manner in which an individual and his or her environment interact as sexual orientation and other personality characteristics unfold developmentally.” 

This observation, but one of many suggestions from scientists, is particularly persuasive because it takes account of the vital element of individual choice that we know to be a true principle of our mortal condition.

So it sounds like the Church is trying to listen to the best scientific and medical evidence available.  Meanwhile, "The Church does not take a position on the cause of same-sex attraction. In 2006, Elder Dallin H. Oaks said, 'The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction.'"

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

It's choice.  I realize that isn't the right thing to say in most circles, but as I have pointed out many times there are very good men (and women) with homosexual desires who are strong in the church and have families.  They choose to adhere.  And some slip.  They choose to slip.  Choice is the ultimate determinant.

But perhaps not the exclusive one, I think.

2 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

As to desire, decades ago Masters and Johnson wrote that homosexual desire is on a continuum.   Many to most men have some homosexual desire, however latent. 

Hence the problematic categorization of "sexual orientation" as a fixed and immutable construct.  

2 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

Just like the desire to commit heinous acts or extremely altruistic acts is a desire on a long continuum.  To some extent, I believe, the desire to commit homosexual acts, heinous acts or extremely altruistic acts is driven by, I agree, proclivities that one is born with, but it is also driven by simple game theory.

But, in the end, it is choice.  Do you know of men who have had many children and then in middle age leave their families and engage in a homosexual lifestyle?  I do.  How about the reverse?  I know of some as well. 

Yep.

2 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

In a free society, we may join a religion which helps us control those impulses and channel desire through male-female marriage.  Or, we can move to West Hollywood and club 5 nights a week.   It is freedom; it is choice.

I have never seen any science to say that it is not a choice.  Having naturally blonde hair is not a choice.  Deciding to engage in homosexual acts in a West Hollywood club is a choice. 

Further, mistrust anybody who uses senseless jargon.   "Challenges the LDS paradigm."  What is that paradigm and where may I read it?

I took that as puffery intended to get notoriety and fill the seats.

Thanks,

-Smac

[cinepro]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So it sounds like the Church is trying to listen to the best scientific and medical evidence available.  Meanwhile, "The Church does not take a position on the cause of same-sex attraction. In 2006, Elder Dallin H. Oaks said, 'The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction.'"

Kind of like how the Church doesn't have a "position" on evolution.  But there's only one answer to the question that doesn't massively derail core Mormon doctrines, so...

Edited October 18, 2017 by cinepro

[thesometimesaint]

41 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

It works the same way for women. The whole notion that it is an evolutionary dead-end is based on an assumption that the mechanism only has one function (of creating same-sex attraction) instead of having more than one outcome - where it as an evolutionary benefit most of the time, and only occasionally works in the other direction.

Homosexuality acts are never an evolutionary benefit in human's. The only thing that counts in evolution is successful reproduction. That in human's means one of each sex. Whether there is epigenetics is involved or not is under considerable discussion. We do not know the reasons for same sex attraction. We  do know that if it is a choice it starts between the ages of 2-5 years old. There is plenty of evidence that human males have an inborn desire to copulate with as many females as possible, but that women are a bit more discriminating in their choices of a mate. Culture, and The Pill, makes up the difference.

[cinepro]

3 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

Further, mistrust anybody who uses senseless jargon.   "Challenges the LDS paradigm."  What is that paradigm and where may I read it?

May I suggest starting by reading the first five paragraphs of your post?

[thesometimesaint]

Just now, cinepro said:

Kind of like how the Church doesn't have a "position" on evolution.  But there's only one answer to the question that doesn't massively derail core Mormon doctrines.

Evolution is no bar to core Mormon doctrine's. Though it is a bar to Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine.

[cinepro]

2 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Homosexuality acts are never an evolutionary benefit in human's. The only thing that counts in evolution is successful reproduction. That in human's means one of each sex. Whether there is epigenetics is involved or not is under considerable discussion. We do not know the reasons for same sex attraction. We  do know that if it is a choice it starts between the ages of 2-5 years old. There is plenty of evidence that human males have an inborn desire to copulate with as many females as possible, but that women are a bit more discriminating in their choices of a mate. Culture, and The Pill, makes up the difference.

I have a relative who is unable to have children.  Low sperm count, or at least he claims.  I've explained to him that his inability to have children can't be genetic but instead it must be something he is choosing to do, because there is no genetic advantage to his being unable to have children.  Heck, if everyone was unable to have kids, the entire human race would die out in one generation, so it obviously can't be biological. 

It's just logical.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

While women can be homosexuals acting on that too is an evolutionary dead end. Until the artificial insemination of human females was established at best they would have to be Bi-Sexual.

Umm without getting into unsavory discussions that's not the case. Speaking purely of animals even there females among some species aren't exactly given a lot of choice in what the male does. Evolution of course doesn't care about volition much. Sexual selection can produce things where one sex is attracted to some arbitrary morphology in the other sex that perhaps originally had incidental relation to fitness. But it can also select so that one sex simply forces itself on the other. Ducks for instance have a complex vagina so that the females can keep the DNA from unwanted males from reaching the egg but have desired DNA reach it. It's a bit of an arms race in terms of the sexual selection often resulting in fairly complex behaviors and morphology. Again ducks being a rather good example.

11 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Homosexuality acts are never an evolutionary benefit in human's. The only thing that counts in evolution is successful reproduction. That in human's means one of each sex. Whether there is epigenetics is involved or not is under considerable discussion. We do not know the reasons for same sex attraction.

But of course it's not acts that are selected for. What allows better reproductive success can be due to multiple genes that in certain combinations lead to much better success but in other combinations may lead to less. What will count is the overall reproductive success. That's most likely why homosexual behavior pops up in most mammals and even many birds.

 

[clarkgoble]

13 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Kind of like how the Church doesn't have a "position" on evolution.  But there's only one answer to the question that doesn't massively derail core Mormon doctrines, so...

Not to go down a tangent, but what?

[RevTestament]

I have stated in this forum that I believe there is an epigenetic component to homosexuality. However, this presentation would lead one to believe that the brain is sexed by the time of birth by epigenetics. However, there are cases of many children changing their sex identity after they reach puberty - in other words males who feel they are female deciding they are male after reaching puberty and vice versa. These cases seem to contradict the simple presentation that sexual imprinting is determined by the time of birth by epigenetics. I believe that epigenetics continue to shape many aspects of our lives long after we are born. In other words environment plays a large role. Therefore, I consider this talk to be simply one more assault on the truth by those who wish to believe gays are born gay. I believe the truth is much more complicated, and that environment does play an important role. Therefore, I believe it is incumbent on society to provide a healthy heterosexual environment for each child which includes male and female parent role models, and decreased exposure to all things homosexual - pornography, TV relationships, etc. This is not a message our society currently wants to portray, and so we continue to see efforts to try to make the "born gay" narrative stick even though there is mounting evidence against it. I see the current paradigm portrayed in print and on TV as being detrimental to our society as a whole, and contrary to God's will. It is one thing to treat gays civilly, but another thing to splash it all over TV down to a TV show I recently saw with guys doing it. The latter I have a big problem with. I am sure that will make me unpopular, but that is the truth as I see it. Kids need more and better role models, but they have less - with most marriages ending in divorce and almost a majority not getting married in the first place. I believe there is a lot of hurt in modern relationships, and this hurt and lack of love gets spilled over into perceptions of maturing children. Many just can't find natural affection anymore. It's no wonder that homosexuality is blossoming since it seems to have a strong component of outward physical attraction.

[carbon dioxide]

To me, the cause of sexual orientation really is not important in large view.  We have a good indication that alcoholism is genetic based.  Does this mean we excuse those that are alcoholics and accept them being drunk often as its all natural and good?  We help them deal with the issues they are confronting but we don't say "Its natural and who you are.  Lets go celebrate at a bar."

In an LDS context, the natural man is an enemy to God.  So regardless of what we are naturally inclined to do, we are to structure of lives in a way that keeps us inbound with the gospel.  Give up our will to God.  That is the test in life.  We have empathy for those who are struggling but we don't change our standards at the same time.

[Johnnie Cake]

30 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Kind of like how the Church doesn't have a "position" on evolution.  But there's only one answer to the question that doesn't massively derail core Mormon doctrines, so...

I’m a little buzzed just having exited my favorite SLC pub Beerhive but Amen brother

Edited October 18, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

In an LDS context, the natural man is an enemy to God.  So regardless of what we are naturally inclined to do, we are to structure of lives in a way that keeps us inbound with the gospel.  Give up our will to God.  That is the test in life.  We have empathy for those who are struggling but we don't change our standards at the same time.

This is why I'm fervently trying to give up the "natural man" and to become gay. I'm tired of my heterosexuality (my "natural man") making me an enemy to God.

[Johnnie Cake]

28 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I have a relative who is unable to have children.  Low sperm count, or at least he claims.  I've explained to him that his inability to have children can't be genetic but instead it must be something he is choosing to do, because there is no genetic advantage to his being unable to have children.  Heck, if everyone was unable to have kids, the entire human race would die out in one generation, so it obviously can't be biological. 

It's just logical.

Elder oaks married a post menopause woman. Surely marriage can be for companionship too, right?