zil

PC, IMO, you're not missing anything, but others are.  Here are some of the responses your rational thoughts would get:
 
1) It doesn't matter how many.  Or: There are more than you think.  Or: I know half-a-dozen who go to church every week.  (I suspect some hyperbole in there.)
 
2) It's punishing the child for the parents' sin.  (It seems some people cannot distinguish between punishment, consequence, and/or suffering; and they tend to forget that in addition to being a blessing, baptism is a covenant - indeed, it's only a blessing if you keep the covenant.)  This is always followed by one or two scriptures, perhaps an Article of Faith, in isolation, as if the meaning of the entire body of scripture doesn't impact the meaning of each individual part.
 
Also lots of specific variations were brought up (divorced parents, one becomes homosexual; etc.) and the policy was declared unfair in such situations (as if bishops and those above them can't interview, ponder, pray, and send the information up the line even when it seems like the policy has no flexibility (again, reading a few policies without the context of the rest of the handbook and other training material)).
 
Many especially find fault in the requirement to disavow the parents' same-gender sexual relationship before baptism or a mission.  The ability to put that in context seems lost: should we baptize someone or send them out as a missionary if they don't believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, or that the Book of Mormon is true?  When someone is raised in a household whose very existence proclaims that same-gender marriage (in the mind of said couple) is not a sin, it's only reasonable to ensure the child of that family understands that it is a sin according to the organization they're about to join / represent before putting them under covenant to obey (or preach) that doctrine.
 
And it's clear from the ensuing comments that they were hoping the church would one day change their stance on same-gender sex, as if the scriptures on that topic would suddenly be declared null and void.
 
One last thought (sorry for the length so far): Exodus 20:12 requires children to honor their parents.  Baptism would turn that from commandment to covenant, since baptism is a covenant to obey all of God's commandments.  But some of the rest of those commandments include things like sharing the Gospel (the one that teaches same-gender sex is a sin).  How in the world could a minor child of same-gender parents (or one parent in a same-gender marriage) keep both commandments at the same time?  Better for the child not to enter into the covenant until they can understand exactly what they're getting into, and stand a chance of keeping that covenant.  And in the meantime, do their best with honoring their parents.

At least six times in the D&C the Lord says how doesn't matter (search for "mattereth not").  So at least sometimes, it doesn't matter how we do something, just that we do it.  (I think this is where that "anxiously engaged" principle comes in.)

Why does this matter again? Either they do, and they get that opportunity through baptism for the dead, or they don't, and they still get that opportunity through baptism for the dead.

A scary movie is not the authority on what "hell" is really like - it's based on writer's imaginings on the topic. Try to see the film for what it is - a carefully constructed set of edited images and sounds designed to scare us.
 
If horror films are making you feel so bad as to think you are destined for "hell" - then it seems they are messing with your psyche. A better option might be to stop watching horror films and use your time to view media that will uplift and fill you with hope, laughter and joy. 

From google's dictionary (since it's important that if we're gonna discuss a topic like this, it would be best first to agree on which definition we're going by):
...and cuz the very next paragraph in John A. Widtsoe's book after the "It is folly..." bit, starts with this sentence:
...or maybe I should just go make popcorn, in case this is an action-adventure thread... (minutes later: "Wow! Who knew there were so many smiley faces to choose from!)

From google's dictionary (since it's important that if we're gonna discuss a topic like this, it would be best first to agree on which definition we're going by):
...and cuz the very next paragraph in John A. Widtsoe's book after the "It is folly..." bit, starts with this sentence:
...or maybe I should just go make popcorn, in case this is an action-adventure thread... (minutes later: "Wow! Who knew there were so many smiley faces to choose from!)

NOTE: I am not by any means denying that we have a big problem of women dressing, speaking, and behaving immodestly.  I am not denying that this is driven by various worldly factors.  I am denying that this is strictly a problem of the way women dress, speak, and behave; and that it can be solved by addressing only that side of things.
 
If you only teach the young men that the young women ought to dress modestly, you're teaching them that their reactions to what girls wear aren't their fault cuz the girls never shoulda been wearing that in the first place.
 
The prevalence of a problem does not, in my opinion, seem relevant.  It is possible for men to be immodest, and we should teach everyone that modesty is the standard for all of us, regardless of gender.  Immodesty includes appearance, speech, and behavior.  Immodesty includes watching that porn made for men.  Immodesty includes the ogling of men and women.  Immodesty includes the tight muscle shirt intended to attract / impress the girls (even if the girls' biological reaction isn't always as strong as the male biological reaction), as well as whatever skimpy outfit the girl is wearing.
 
I object to addressing the issue one-sided because that's part of our problem.  Even the dictionary (google's in this case) contributes to the wrong opinion that only women can be modest (and therefore immodest)... Their definition of modest:
 
A man can't dress or behave so as to avoid (or encourage, if we reverse this) impropriety or indecency, especially to avoid (or encourage...) attracting sexual attention?  They certainly can.
 
Interestingly, "immodest" is defined as "lacking humility or decency." - men (and women) can certainly be guilty of that, as well as the reverse of modest, whatever the word is for that.
 
As I mentioned previously, I would hope that long before we get anywhere near porn, we're teaching about the sacred nature of the human body, about the importance of all of us dressing, speaking, and behaving toward ourselves and others in a way appropriate to that sacredness (and that we're not teaching that modesty is just the way women dress).

Doriette, please accept my deepest sympathy for you, and all who have loved ones in Paris, especially loved ones hurt or killed in these attacks.  I am praying for all of you; having been denied peace in the world, may you have the Savior's peace.

NOTE: I am not by any means denying that we have a big problem of women dressing, speaking, and behaving immodestly.  I am not denying that this is driven by various worldly factors.  I am denying that this is strictly a problem of the way women dress, speak, and behave; and that it can be solved by addressing only that side of things.
 
If you only teach the young men that the young women ought to dress modestly, you're teaching them that their reactions to what girls wear aren't their fault cuz the girls never shoulda been wearing that in the first place.
 
The prevalence of a problem does not, in my opinion, seem relevant.  It is possible for men to be immodest, and we should teach everyone that modesty is the standard for all of us, regardless of gender.  Immodesty includes appearance, speech, and behavior.  Immodesty includes watching that porn made for men.  Immodesty includes the ogling of men and women.  Immodesty includes the tight muscle shirt intended to attract / impress the girls (even if the girls' biological reaction isn't always as strong as the male biological reaction), as well as whatever skimpy outfit the girl is wearing.
 
I object to addressing the issue one-sided because that's part of our problem.  Even the dictionary (google's in this case) contributes to the wrong opinion that only women can be modest (and therefore immodest)... Their definition of modest:
 
A man can't dress or behave so as to avoid (or encourage, if we reverse this) impropriety or indecency, especially to avoid (or encourage...) attracting sexual attention?  They certainly can.
 
Interestingly, "immodest" is defined as "lacking humility or decency." - men (and women) can certainly be guilty of that, as well as the reverse of modest, whatever the word is for that.
 
As I mentioned previously, I would hope that long before we get anywhere near porn, we're teaching about the sacred nature of the human body, about the importance of all of us dressing, speaking, and behaving toward ourselves and others in a way appropriate to that sacredness (and that we're not teaching that modesty is just the way women dress).

First, I'm so happy for you that you've found your way back.  Keep praying and fasting.  Satan will try to use this to discourage you; don't let him.  The Lord has all power, knows what you need, and is merciful and generous beyond imagining.  If you have to work for a year to pay off this debt and then go on your mission, do it!  Don't let the length of the obligation keep you from going.  It's possible that acting like that, in faith, will open doors for you - there is great power in taking the first step.  Even if it takes longer than you hope, certainly your faith will increase for the effort.
 
Other thoughts: I don't know the technicalities of how these things work, but aren't there entities out there which help arrange for payments for this sort of thing, as a go-between, despite what the collection agency want?  (Maybe someone else here understands how that works - there are commercials for such things all the time, but I don't now if they're legit or just make things worse.)  Can things like bankruptcy court arrange for payments rather than a lump sum?  If you're not already working and saving toward paying off that debt, start - the sooner the better.
 
Be humble and accept help.  Anyone who helps you to serve a mission will be blessed for their efforts.
 
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/mark/9.23?lang=eng#22
 
FWIW.

Just a few technical points in relation to these comments:
 
 
1. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/2.26?lang=eng#25
 
2. The OP included rape in the conversation.
 
3. At least one of us has said "Men and women, you should be modest."
 
(Another point about the victims of human trafficking has already been made.)
 
I suspect we all mostly agree and we're using different words and perspectives to say similar things, but our perspectives are so different that we're seeing past each other.

And key to the pattern is going to God in faith, already believing, which was what Nephi did (see also Ether 12:6).  Like Vort, this was the most sorrowful part for me - to see so many jump straight to doubt or worst-case, made-up scenarios instead of trusting first.  I'm grateful for this reasoned, calm explanation.

NOTE: I am not by any means denying that we have a big problem of women dressing, speaking, and behaving immodestly.  I am not denying that this is driven by various worldly factors.  I am denying that this is strictly a problem of the way women dress, speak, and behave; and that it can be solved by addressing only that side of things.
 
If you only teach the young men that the young women ought to dress modestly, you're teaching them that their reactions to what girls wear aren't their fault cuz the girls never shoulda been wearing that in the first place.
 
The prevalence of a problem does not, in my opinion, seem relevant.  It is possible for men to be immodest, and we should teach everyone that modesty is the standard for all of us, regardless of gender.  Immodesty includes appearance, speech, and behavior.  Immodesty includes watching that porn made for men.  Immodesty includes the ogling of men and women.  Immodesty includes the tight muscle shirt intended to attract / impress the girls (even if the girls' biological reaction isn't always as strong as the male biological reaction), as well as whatever skimpy outfit the girl is wearing.
 
I object to addressing the issue one-sided because that's part of our problem.  Even the dictionary (google's in this case) contributes to the wrong opinion that only women can be modest (and therefore immodest)... Their definition of modest:
 
A man can't dress or behave so as to avoid (or encourage, if we reverse this) impropriety or indecency, especially to avoid (or encourage...) attracting sexual attention?  They certainly can.
 
Interestingly, "immodest" is defined as "lacking humility or decency." - men (and women) can certainly be guilty of that, as well as the reverse of modest, whatever the word is for that.
 
As I mentioned previously, I would hope that long before we get anywhere near porn, we're teaching about the sacred nature of the human body, about the importance of all of us dressing, speaking, and behaving toward ourselves and others in a way appropriate to that sacredness (and that we're not teaching that modesty is just the way women dress).

And key to the pattern is going to God in faith, already believing, which was what Nephi did (see also Ether 12:6).  Like Vort, this was the most sorrowful part for me - to see so many jump straight to doubt or worst-case, made-up scenarios instead of trusting first.  I'm grateful for this reasoned, calm explanation.

And just think, up until June 26 2015, everyone was all "All we want is the right to marry.  Give us that and you and your church can go do whatever it wants."
 
They didn't want to tell us what to do, they didn't want us to tell them what to do.  It was such an easy choice.  Right?

Your link gave me an error, so just in case others need it, I used google to find a link to your quote with &r=1 on the end, and that works, so I'm linking here ....  The quote you post seemed to me to be under a section specifically about pictures related to General Conference (not that it changes standards, but it provides context, as does the rest of the text surrounding the quote).
 
Maybe the church just doesn't get photo submissions with immodest males in them, but I wanted to see what (if anything) they say about men, cuz modesty is not a female-specific problem or virtue, so it bothers me immensely when I see clothing / dress standards like the quote you posted and a complete absence of corresponding text related to males.  And then the conversation goes on as if only women were (capable of being) immodest.  IMO, that gap contributes to any number of problems.
 
I also found this page: https://www.lds.org/topics/service/create/photo-standards?lang=eng which doesn't have the specifics your link did, though the standards easily cover both genders:
...going back to reading the rest of your post now.

And key to the pattern is going to God in faith, already believing, which was what Nephi did (see also Ether 12:6).  Like Vort, this was the most sorrowful part for me - to see so many jump straight to doubt or worst-case, made-up scenarios instead of trusting first.  I'm grateful for this reasoned, calm explanation.

Have you tried searching LDS.org?  I found a quote from President McKay pretty quickly:
Of course, I suspect this form of meditation might be more similar to what most western people think of as pondering, and not much like the various eastern traditions of meditation.  I think the value of any form of meditation or pondering would depend on your intent more than the form itself.

My own experience with meditation has been very positive. It has helped me to come closer to the spirit, understand the Holy Ghost and who I am, and overcome sin. I don't worry about all the forms. But in almost every instance I start by focusing on the breath and centering my thoughts. I can then either consider a scripture, a spiritual thought, or allow my mind to be blank. None of this is wasted time. It is time well spent. And there is much for us in the west to learn.

David O. Mckay was so good on this point. I see someone has already quoted a piece of what he said, let me quote a little more.