BeccaKirstyn

Gotta love technology... Best story in my family was during my cousin's temple wedding ceremony, and her brother's cell phone went off with the AC/DC song "highway to hell".

I'm so very sorry. My uncle, like a second dad to me, passed away quite a few years ago and we go to In-n-Out on the day of his passing because it was one of his favorite places to eat. It may seem weird to others, but it's a way of remembrance for us to go to his favorite spot and have lunch or dinner with family and remember his time while here on earth. Our family is big, so this loss was hard for everyone. One of the things that really helped us through it (since he passed at a younger age) was to come together and discuss our memories with him. This usually happens even when it's not the "anniversary" of his death, but I've come to find this a very healthy and helpful way of grieving and mourning for any loved one. I hope you are able to find something that works out best for you.

I have just so much love for this talk, I can't stop thinking about how applicable it is currently. I really think it's important to note (especially considering this came out 2 months ago) that he uses the word "fairness" and not "equal" or "equality". In light of recent policy, those who try to view it from a standpoint of "equality" will only see it as a punishment. Those who see the difference between "fairness" (and it's place within the gospel), and "equality", will, in my opinion, have a better understanding of its importance. What's so funny is that in my Women and Crime class (a criminal justice undergraduate class viewing women's experiences in the criminal justice system as offenders, victims, etc.) we talk about many feminist standpoints on women and crime. But recently, my professor was speaking about sentencing policies that were formed off of an "equality" viewpoint for women. That women in the system were to be treated just like men (in which we find is a common argument---women should be treated equally). But this figure she showed us, and what she and other feminists were arguing for, was not for equality, but for "different" treatment. That women's experiences were different than mens, and that the criminal justice system needed to take this into account when making legislation and laws about sentencing guidelines and other things. I'll post the figure in which this was demonstrated (hopefully you can view it well enough). A little off topic, but I couldn't help be reminded of this policy "change" (which I don't believe is a change -- nothing new here). These children have to be treated "differently" not "equally". Their experiences (like the women in the criminal justice system!) are not the same as the other children being raised in the gospel with parents who follow the doctrine of marriage. I don't know. Just my random thinking. What do you all think? (Okay the figure doesn't show up well so I'll try to recreate it) **Also, please note this is more of a funny finding, and not my opinion on women in the criminal justice system (I'm still learning a lot to form a firm opinion)--those who are "politically correct" think a marginalized group of people should not actually be treated equally, but differently, because of their circumstances and experiences. Yet, under this policy implementation, too many are demanding equality instead of this way of thinking that has now become politically correct. Kind of backwards if you think about it. But again....these are my random thoughts late at night when I should be sleeping, but my brain won't stop working. Sigh.... Different Equal *Women are not the same as men; Women should *Women should not affirm their "differences" leads to value those differences affirming qualities and characteristics of powerless- ness *Women are measured against an "equal" standard *Eliminate all conversations of discriminatory treatment created by men and oppression; focus on equality for everyone under the law *Women will always lose with any law created from *Equality under the law is always a good thing in the long "concern and affection" or "chivalry"; focus run; a focus on differential treatment will always be on differential needs; laws should be created by/ unequal treatment. for women

I listened to this speech when it was first given in September, and recently remembered it today. I re-listened to it again (while reading along) and boy is this ever so needful during the recent events that have occurred. If you haven't listened to or read this speech by Elder Rasband, I would urge you to. We need to be involved in the cause of standing up for our faith. One of my favorite parts of this talk (along with many others): " When talking with others about religious freedom, we must always remember that we can disagree without becoming disagreeable. Please do not shy away from a dialogue regarding these important issues simply because you are worried that it might be difficult or uncomfortable. We can pray for help, and we can expect that the Savior will help us speak and act in a way that is pleasing to Him." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHFxST9_fv0 https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/ronald-a-rasband_religious-freedom-and-fairness-for-all/

One of my favorite talks follows this same point. I recommend it for all who study this subject. "His Grace is Sufficient" - Brad Wilcox https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLXr9it_pbY

Considering that you said I was to provide the evidence to the information you were asking for, then no, I don't see a problem with this. Oh come on. You already see me as unreliable. How could you believe any quotation I post to be reliable as well???? I could simply just make up a quote and state that it is from a reliable source, in which you can't view to verify that quote because it costs money view. Good day, Vort! The more I converse with you the less happy I get, and I strive to try to involve myself with happy activities since I am already dealing with lots of stress related to trying to get into graduate school!

I don't know if you've done any kind of research while in school (whenever that might have been) but if you're not aware, scholarly peer-reviewed articles in which the evidence you are asking for resides are not available to the public. There is a wonderful documentary about an individual who tried to make this information publicly accessible if you'd like to watch it--which I highly recommend for anyone, it's a fabulous film ( ), but the evidence you are asking for to credibly cite that human trafficking victims are involved in pornography are unfortunately a pay per view service, unless you are a student at a university where they have paid (through my tuition) to view those journals. I really find no point in this banter, because I can clearly see your viewpoint and no amount of information from me will change it (since you view me as very unreliable). I have my opinion on this topic, and you have yours. The beauty of this is that we can walk away from this conversation with differing viewpoints and not have any animosity for each other, but that is a matter of choice of course. I still respect your opinion, while I disagree with it, and if you have any further inquiry about the subject of human trafficking victims, feel free to message me.

Here. I'm not a fan of just "googling" information and looking at websites. That is unreliable, but this does cite reputable sources. I'm about to be in a research lab for 4 hours so I won't be able to continue our lovely disagreement. But I'll check in later. http://humantraffickingsearch.net/wp/the-connection-between-sex-trafficking-and-pornography/

Goodness, Vort. I'm just going to let you continue on in your stubborn ways with this. I have provided you with reliable sources. I can continue to cite studies in which you won't be able to read since you couldn't read the first article (they will all cost money for you to view seeing that the first one was $30). So we'll just keep going on in an endless circle of disagreement. I am not an expert. I am a student learning about this subject matter through research and have personally spoken with and cried with young women who have experienced what we are discussing. So am I biased? Sure. I have too many personal experiences to not be biased. But please do not make assumptions as to my character in the academic community. Feel free to look up this matter for yourself if you have no sense of reliability from me. Or don't.

Like I said.....if you can't view this it's because I'm using a student library database system in which I have access to articles for free. The title of the article is stated above if you'd like to search for a free copy of it. If you'd like to view the studies that reference my "claims", then these studies will be found in similar journal articles which unfortunately are not available for free for the community (but free for students who pay for it through their tuition). So you can either believe that I, as a student of a reputable university, have just lied to you about the research I have read on the subject matter, or you can believe that what I state is true (and even more so because I have personally talked to girls who have escaped their pimps who were forced into performing for pornographic films and are in counseling programs that I have volunteered with). It's up to you. You can believe what you would like.

As much as I would love to continue with this back and forth banter of disagreement, I have a million and one things going on with graduation and applying to graduate schools that are a little bit more important at the moment. Maybe when I have some down time I'll reply back. I will, however, provide you with some light reading on the subject matter that you disbelieve. Hopefully you can view this, since I've obtained this article through a student library database system. If not, the article is titled "Pornography as Trafficking", by Catherine A. Mackinnon. http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/mjil26&div=44&g_sent=1&collection=journals

I have been trying to come to terms with this as well, and don't understand it. I have been a little out of touch with old college friends at BYU who I used to remember as strong, faithful members of the Church. When this all started last week, the amount of LDS friends I made while up there that were completely against this policy and beginning to question the Church shocked me. On top of that, I found out that 2 of my friends had already disassociated themselves with the Church and this just brought more fuel to the fire for them. It broke my heart, honestly. To see people I knew so well and grew my testimony with fall away from what they used to believe with their whole heart and dedicated 1 1/2-2 years of their lives to serve The Lord for it. But I know this kind of division between the righteous and the unrighteous will become even more evident as time moves along.

Thanks, LiterateParakeet. You put it in a much more clear way.

Good thing none of you have to agree with my own opinion.

I am speaking for myself. Am I stating my opinion about how I think anyone pointing out someone else's sin is a sin in of itself? Sure. But you don't have to agree with me (which you have just stated, and is perfectly fine). And thank you for your kind words.

You can say wearing immodest clothing is wrong. You can have an opinion about it all you want. But when any person begins to claim that a specific individual is being immodest because of their choice of clothing, and then talks about it to other people (gossiping), that crosses a line. If I see another young woman and I think "wow, totally not a modest outfit" I don't get a warm and fuzzy feeling in my heart for recognizing this. I instantly feel bad for being judgmental. What if that is the only outfit she has? What if she doesn't understand the principle of modesty? What if she finds this outfit modest and I just don't? The Lord will look upon sin in His own accord. As for me, I have no place to look upon someone else's sin and say anything about it.

Not going to assume your age, but getting into debt as a young adult is easily done, without realizing what you have started in this day and age. Very different time than from even 15 years ago. I don't think this is really needed in the scenario. This individual obviously understands the fact that they have a large amount of debt and a significant problem they are faced with. Solutions are better than pointing out how you don't understand how they got themselves into the situation. For the OP, congratulations. You are the people I look up to. Your faith is incredible, and I know it will help you through this crazy and stressful time. I liked zil's advice: there has to be some kind of in-between agency that will pay it off for you while you make some sort of payment plans to them (unfortunately I can see this coming with interest rates of their own, but maybe a solution feasible in your scenario). I would talk to a financial counselor from your previous university. Maybe they could give you some guidance. Or just a financial advisor in general if you know of any around. I wish you luck! As zil has stated, even if it means taking a year to work and wait before you go, you can still prepare for a year to grow your testimony and increase your desire to serve The Lord.

Alright, well there was a lot of emotion in this post so I'll try to approach this from a more sensitive standpoint. You are exactly right. It is our CHOICE to choose whether or not we dress modestly or immodestly. This choice is relevant to our obedience to the law of chastity. We have a choice whether or not to choose that dress for a night out and put our garments aside "for just one night" for that cute dress. We also have a choice whether or not we choose to read our scriptures every night, to pray, to go to church every Sunday, to be righteous temple recommend holders, to pay our tithing, and so much more. That is the beauty of being on this Earth. We have agency to choose what type of son/daughter of God we will be. There will ALWAYS be members that choose "the wrong". But this cannot have any bearing on our own testimony of these principles and how they apply to our lives. There will ALWAYS be members who are displayed in society as the hypocrite "mormon". Those are the ones who get the media's attention, not the righteous members. The judgment of God is the only one who gets to decide how this individual's choice to be obedient to His commandments will affect this eternal life. Beyond that is out of range of our own judgment. Whether or not you think "Betty's" choice to wear an immodest dress that does not suit the guidelines of garments is just not of importance to your salvation. If this affects your testimony of the principle, then that is a whole different scenario. We must choose how WE will live these principles and not focus so much on how everyone else is choosing to live them. They have their own agency, as you have stated, and will decide however they want. It is more important that we decide how we will live them, and how Christ-like we will be towards those who do not follow the principles that we follow. None of us are perfect. No one will ever be a perfect Saint here on Earth. We all will fall short in many aspects (including modesty). We all have our own subjective view on what is modest and what is not (I don't want to go find the previous post about this, but there was plenty of disagreement of whether the "maxi-dress" skirts are considered modest or not). These decisions are between us and The Lord. I may feel modest in a dress that sits above my knee but is much longer than my garments, where you may not feel the same. There are still clear guidelines of what modesty is, but how we choose to apply them to ourselves is where I think this feeling of "mixed messages" is coming from. We must be concerned for our fellow members, but only as Christ would be. There will always be members who are not following every commandment, but we must love them anyway and not put so much thought into why they chose to wear that one outfit. We'll go crazy trying to figure out why some people follow the principle of modesty in one way and why someone else follows it in a different way.

I don't think it's any of your business whether or not her costume would allow her to wear her garments. Why do we care so much? I really don't understand. That decision is between her and The Lord. The teaching about modesty and the appropriate wearing of the garment is compatible with your relationship with Heavenly Father (which is also none of your business). I don't mean to sound crass but this conversation to me is beyond righteous judgment. This is us pointing fingers at those who aren't "obeying" the principles the way we think they should be obeying them. Your opinion about her choice to wear a costume that was more "revealing", I'm assuming, has no bearing on your own salvation or hers. This is beyond righteous judgment to me and goes straight under the category of unnecessary and unkind judgment. Would you be willing to say this to this sister's face? Would you want someone else to approach you with some other sin in which you were falling short? I certainly would not. I understand that we are trying to discuss that us "LDS" folks don't understand the true concept of modesty and we're trying to make a point out of it. But conversations like this are not the way to do it. How about we look to our own lives and how WE are living the principle of modesty. How can we improve? How can we teach our children this (if applicable)? How can we be better members of the Church? This is worthwhile discussion.

I think you are very correct.

And I do want this to be very clear: We are discussing LDS women and their choice of modesty, NOT women who have no knowledge of the principle of modesty. These are two very distinct groups of women with different knowledge and understanding. How I have replied to your posts Vort is in discussion about women in the pornography industry in which I would estimate that close to 90% of them have no knowledge about the principle of modesty from Heavenly Father. (I'm making my own rough estimate from my knowledge of the women in this industry and my research on this topic).

Oh, Vort..... I wasn't saying that modesty has no part in the solution. I am stating that modesty does not equal the end of individuals who choose to view pornography and sexualize a woman or a man. This fact alone means EVERYTHING. This is the central part of this solution. If we viewed each other as children of God, rather than an object for lust and masturbation, then we would not have any intentions to sexualize each other. We would understand our purpose, the purpose of our fellow brothers and sisters, and their worth. So you must see these "porn stars" as women who choose to participate in this activity because they want people to view them in such a horrific way? Because they want their bodies splashed all over the internet? Are you aware that the majority of women in these pornographic movies and films are women who are trafficked into this business by their pimp? That these women are not willingly wanting to display their bodies for men to be gratified by them, but have been forced, beaten, tortured, and traded for money by a disgusting human being who views this woman as less than dirt? Are there women in this industry who, by their own means and will, volunteer to be apart of it? Yes. Many women do. And I do not view a one of them as someone who WANTS to be viewed as a sexual object. I view them as women who have been abused, degraded, and shamed their whole life into a job that they feel they are only capable of having. That because society views them as what you have stated above, that they feel they can never leave this industry due to the shame that would be placed upon them. I have met these women. I have listened to their stories and wept with them as they described the sexual abuse they experienced in their past by their own family members, the option of prostitution or living on the streets and hoping not to die. I do not blame them for their actions. I empathize with them. I hope to get rid of this horrible industry so that women do not have to resort to such measures just to stay alive. Most importantly, I hope this industry is destroyed for the sake of the young women who are trafficked into it. I blame the individuals (NOT just men) who buy and sell pornography that keeps it alive. It is actually not off-topic whatsoever. Pornography is rape for the women who have no desire to be apart of it but have no other option available to them. It is also an absurd correlation that filters in our culture when discussing the issues of modesty. So you may view it as off-topic, but I view as very central to the argument being stated. So we can differ on that. I'm not sure if we read the same posts or if we are viewing it differently, but this post was speaking about modesty's relationship to pornography. Which has everything to do with the sexualization of women in society, because those in pornographic films are almost always women. And I would completely disagree with what you would assume should be the central theme of this post. This should be about Modesty, and it's relationship to us and our own salvation, not dependent upon what gender you are. Modesty is a principle for every person. Not just women. I would refer you back to my statement about women's role in pornography. What you have just stated is what I believe is wrong with our culture, and I am sorry if that is offensive to you but I cannot stand what you have just stated. "Shame on them". We are always talking on this forum about being more Christ-like, and I can in no way see Christ saying this to any one of these women. He didn't say anything of the sort to the adulterer brought to him in the act of the sin, so why should we be allowed to say "shame on you for choosing to dress immodestly"? We should be teaching love and the teachings of Christ. So should we be teaching them about modesty? Sure, but I would not start with modesty. I would start with the teaching of their worth, most importantly their divine worth. That they are loved by a Father in Heaven. That they have a Savior who died for them and suffered anguish and pain so that they would not have to bear their burdens alone. Then after they have that foundation, the can understand the concept of modesty. No one in our society understands the concept of modesty because they have not been taught the former principles stated. And if they still choose to dress immodestly after such concepts have been taught, then that is between them and God. Not for us to say "shame on them". You can teach your children anything you want. That is between you, your children, and God. As soon as you say "shame on you" to the person who is dressing immodestly, then I believe that is a very different scenario. I'm not sure where in my post that I stated that the concept of modesty should not be taught. As LDS members we should understand the reason for modesty an the purpose of it. For those who have no concept of WHY dressing modestly is important, I do not hold them to such a standard. Society tells them that showing more leg and more of their boobs will get a man's attention. A man reinforces this by showing her attention (for the sole purpose of wanting sex). If a woman chooses to dress provocatively, then she chooses to dress provocatively. Any man who chooses to view her as less than a human being is the one at fault. I believe I already answered this.

The solution to the problem of the sexualization of women is not modesty. The solution to the problem of pornography addictions is not modesty. Any man or woman can "undress" and think inappropriately about a woman's body with modest clothing on. You cannot control the mind of a man or woman with the intent to sexualize a woman/man. The solution to these problems is changing how we view each other. That we are sons and daughters of God. That girl, who is in a porn movie, is a daughter of God, and DOES NOT deserve to be viewed as a sexualized object just because she is dressed "provocatively" in your mind. She also does not deserve to be raped just because she was dressed "immodestly/provocatively" (I don't believe you are assuming this but I want to make that very clear for anyone who believes such a foolish notion). I don't ever think this will be a solution feasible in our society. But we cannot just say "hey women, stop dressing so provocatively. It's reminding me of the porn I watch and makes me want to sexualize you". This is completely putting the women at fault when they have done NOTHING. You may say that they have by dressing immodestly. There may be women out there who specifically dress provocatively to get the attention of men. That is THEIR choice. For LDS members, who are taught to treat their body as a temple and respect the gift they have been given from God, the choice of modesty is between the individual, God, and their parents (if under the age of 18). Any repercussions beyond their choice of dress (i.e., someone sexualizing her/him because of their choice of clothing) is the fault of the person choosing to follow the ill thoughts of their mind. We have agency to choose to dress modestly or not. We have agency to choose to not view a man or woman with sexual intent. We have agency to choose to look at pornography or not. I do believe it can become an addiction and I do believe and know the power of addictions. But we are not a slave to our mind. There will always be immodestly dressed individuals on this Earth (intentionally or unintentionally). As to your studies about men viewing pornography and then gradually assuming rape is okay: this is not in the case for "regular" pornography. This is only the case for violent pornography. The correlations about pornography and less understanding about consent, rape, assault, etc. is found for only violent pornography. This does not mean I think any form of pornography is better than the other. It is all horrific and detrimental to society. I understand your reasoning and I am so very sorry for the things you have experienced in your past. But I cannot agree that modesty is the solution to this overwhelming problem.

I just don't really understand how acknowledging someone who is dressed immodestly is something worth even discussing. If it is someone in your ward, and you are not the mother, father, young women's/young men's leader, or bishop of that individual, then I do not believe it is within our judgment to say anything to the individual or even contemplate their lifestyle choices within ourselves. Can we contemplate the principle of modesty and how we are following it/not following it? Absolutely. But how is this individual's choice to dress immodestly pertinent to our salvation? It's not. What is pertinent to our salvation is to be loving and friendly to this individual. What is pertinent to the bishop's salvation, the mother and father's salvation, is to teach the correct principles to their son or daughter. What is pertinent to that individual's salvation is how they choose to follow that principle.

We all have different personalities. As mentioned, communication via text is not as easy to pick up on those personality characteristics that affect the way you communicate. I read someone's post with a general idea of what this person sounds like (so yes, I've given you all personal voices in my head when I read your posts---totally not weird...) based on what I've picked up about this person. But I don't truly know what any of you are like (besides what you've stated on this forum). So we have a tendency to misread, misunderstand, and mistranslate communication via text, which is not as prominent in communication in person (but still possible). We also don't trip over our words or say "um, ah, uh" like we do in typical communication. We get time to think out our responses and correct any errors. I feel like I was going to get at some grand point but now I've forgotten and am going to leave it at that. Main point: communication via text has it's downfalls!