Maureen

How I read your response ( Thanks for the tl;dr, the whole quote is long ((and appreciated))  )
So in 2011, no one cared.  After 2012, women who want to wear pants shouldn't because it's associated with the One-Eyed, One-Horned Flying Purple Pants Wearers.  
It is unfortunate that the 'rebellious' chose such a simple article of clothing to represent their protest and that pants are now associated with apostasy.  I can see how others are making that connection, although it seems a bigger leap to me.  
This whole thread reminds me of the meme I've seen a number of people post on Facebook about a woman who is going to leave the Church.  She talks to her Bishop and says she can't take all the hypocrisy, back-biting, gossiping, one-up-manship of the other people.  The Bishop asks her to carry a spoonful of water around the whole building without spilling a drop.  She does this and reports back her success.  The Bishop asked if she saw anyone acting in those horrible ways and she says "No, I was too focused on the water."  He then compares that to how she should focus on Jesus Christ at church and not on other people.
Even if a woman wears pants to church in support of the Purple Pants People, what will happen?  Nothing, that I can tell.

You left out dresses and white shirts....would you like to revise?

By the way, in case the writer of the article or somebody at MGF is lurking here reading my comments:
This is not about Pants.  This is about the cancer called Modern Feminists.
 

I find this one of the greatest fallacies we teach.  I really do.  It's tantamount to surrendering our agency. And when it takes its natural extension (which I've heard multiple times) that if we follow the prophet and the prophet is wrong (or whatever priesthood leader), then the fault lies on the prophet, it's outright heretical. 
I will not surrender my agency like that, nor will I displace the accountability for my decisions. 
And to be clear, I don't have a problem doing things that I don't understand. I'm just not prone to doing something that the Lord, as far as I can tell in my dialog with Him, just doesn't care about.

Several years ago, we had a young woman join the Church.  I believe she was 19 or 20.  The first ward council meeting after her baptism, one of the counselors in the bishopric asked who was going to talk to her about removing her nose piercing, because she was a member of the church now. She had stopped coming to church within two weeks of her baptism. 
Believe it or not, some of our cultural dress expectations become a barrier for some investigators. When someone walks in the door and feels entirely out of place because they are the only person not wearing a white shirt/suit jacket/tie or dress, it feels isolating. From that first experience, they can start thinking, "oh, I don't belong here." or "there's no one like me here."  

I know.  So crazy. 
Prophet-guy says something.
MOE prays: "God, that seems a bit odd. How do you feel about that?" 
God gives a metaphysical shoulder shrug
MOE wears a blue shirt to church
Grunt confirms that MOE is a non prophet following heathen.

Because I've felt zero confirmation that the Lord actually cares.

I still feel like I'm missing some commandment, directive, or suggestion.  Is the "No pants" stance simply a reaction to the 2012 movement?  If that hadn't happened would there be an issue?  I am seriously confused by the reactions in this thread.

She specifically says she wasn't offended.

The author of the article did not complain about her bishop. She merely mentioned how she was surprised by his question, thinking that even now, after all these years, someone would think that a woman wearing pants to church is a sign of rebellion. When in actuality wearing pants is a lot more comfortable to a lot of women than wearing a dress. From what I read, that is precisely why the author wears them. 
M.

I feel like I've missed something.  Where does it say that women shouldn't wear pants to church?  I found where sister missionaries are supposed to wear skirts or dresses to Sunday services, but not regular members.
My work has casual Fridays, like a lot of offices.  Jeans are only allowed then.  However, I don't think jeans are comfortable.  I opt to chose cargo pants when essentially everyone else wears jeans.  I don't feel like I'm rebelling or making a statement.  I think the author of this article has a similar view of dresses.

Anyway, my point is, the statement "Church is not the platform for your social justice agenda.  You deserve what you get if you go down that path." comes off as pretty self-assured, implying that there's only one place that path leads to.  It would seem the truth is far more nuanced than that. 
And I'm also willing to make it personal.  If those who go down that path deserve what they get, please, explain to me what I should be getting.

I'm not sure those trends are as strong as you might think.  Truthfully, I think the only thing that I've learned from the fates of those particular individuals is that bad publicity is more likely to get you in trouble than the things they stood for.
I participated in Wear Pants to Church Day. I rarely wear white shirts. I refuse to shave unless I'm going into work. I am vocally feminist and unabashed about my social preferences. I am highly critical of many of the Church's policies, and have refused to serve in youth programs on the grounds that I refuse to run a program bound to all of the constraints the Church imposes. I have publicly complained about the language used in temple ordinances (prior to last year's changes). When the November policy was first released, I described it publicly, in Church, in front of the bishop and the entire ward, as a foul and disgusting policy.
The penalty for all that behavior has been more influence, more responsibility, and more trust.
And I'm not the only one. I've seen more and more men and women in my stake move in similar directions (with varying extremes).  Heck, I've even watched my bishop get asked if women are treated fairly in the Church and give the response "[chuckle]. No, of course not."  
So it seems like the hash tag you're looking for is #butitsdifferentwhenitisntinthenews

Dear Reader, I have a confession: I wear pants to church. Sorry, I should clarify why this is a confession: I'm a woman and I wear pants to church. If we're just talking about style choices, I also like horizontal stripes, dangling earrings, and natural, wavy, hair. But this particular style choice is much more important than that. Sure, you may be thinking what you wear to church is not important. We go to church to  renew covenants. I agree! However, if what we wear is so insignificant, why does the sight of women wearing pants cause such a fuss in the first place? Believe me, it does. In December of 2012, some Latter-day Saints staged "Wear Pants to Church Day". One participant, Jamie Baydd, remarked in this article that it was designed to tell church members that "If you think you're different...or if you feel there isn't a place for you here, there is." Saints within and beyond the continental U.S. and Europe participated to raise cultural awareness. Women and men wore pants...
View the full article

This is in fact how is has always supposed to have been handled. Because members of the church understand the priesthood and respect those in authority, many LDS people fall into this trap/belief that the Bishop is in charge of everything that takes place within the ward boundaries, and needs to have the final say on everything. They are good people, but just expect to be led about too often. The Bishop does not direct your life. Can this issue be a church issue...yes. However, it is also a legal one. Outside of the church this wouldn't even be a question - people hear about abuse, they notify the police. Unless you really have no idea what to do, there is no reason one should go to the Bishop first with news of abuse, let alone expect him to do something about it, or give you direction. Adults need to be adults and think for themselves. Law enforcement first, then notify local clergy leaders to help rally support for the victim and the aggrieved as appropriate.

http://www.larknews.com/archives/217

@mikbone, I count 13 people in that picture. None of them look old enough to be the parents of eleven children, so I'm assuming two are in-laws. Nice family, BTW.
M.

The hot one on the far left is the wife.  Redhead in the vest is a DIL.  I took the picture.  The slug is probably in the foreground.

@Mores From what I gather, you think Gator said he thinks it's better to be "A" in real life and "B" online than "B" in real life and "A" online.  When what he said was he respects people who are "A" online and in real life rather than "A" online and "B" in real life.

I believe JAG is referring to this passage of scripture, which has sometimes been tragically misinterpreted to label those who cannot speak as heretics.

I don't understand a word of this post. 

What I took from Mormon Gator's original comment is that you should be the same everywhere you go — be the same person online that you are in real life. I think anonymity in some regards allows us to be our true selves — to voice our true opinions — because we're not worried about how others will perceive us, or for any lashback we might receive.
I have the most respect for people who are exactly the same person online that they are in real life; who are genuine in ALL aspects of their lives, whether that's on the internet or in person... I think that's the point MG was making.

I was shouting the same thing from the roof top four months ago. But because one of my best friends and siblings is going through it, I have taken a softer and more respectful approach. 
But don’t get me wrong. I will never agree with the movement and I am always quick to clarify what “support” means when she or anyone asks me if I support her transition. 
But seeing that transgenders have such a high rate of suicide, my sister has a history of anxiety, I will be interacting with her a ton, and that she never really believed in God... I find that it would be more destructive and unhealthy for everyone (particularly her) if I was vocal about my disagreement, called her mentally ill for wanting to transition, preaching the proclamation to the family, and refusing to call her what she strongly believes she is.

I am unaware of any major Christian denomination that "claims they know the truth because they have it figured out right."  This is a terrible mischaracterization.  Every Christian church I'm familiar with has based itself on truth that God has revealed through the Scriptures, through the prophets, and most importantly through Jesus Christ.  To claim otherwise shows a profound misunderstanding of how other Christian churches view themselves.

Are you allowed to have pancakes? A banana on a pancake is wonderful.
M.