Jedi_Nephite

Actually, it's not an unspoken cultural standard.
As stated in the manual, "The Gospel of Jesus Christ":
"Dress:
Men and boys generally wear suits or nice pants with a shirt and tie. Women and girls wear dresses or skirts."
Source: “Worship with Us,” The Gospel of Jesus Christ (2005), 22–23
https://www.lds.org/manual/the-gospel/worship-with-us?lang=eng&query=dress+standards+at+church

Actually, it's not an unspoken cultural standard.
As stated in the manual, "The Gospel of Jesus Christ":
"Dress:
Men and boys generally wear suits or nice pants with a shirt and tie. Women and girls wear dresses or skirts."
Source: “Worship with Us,” The Gospel of Jesus Christ (2005), 22–23
https://www.lds.org/manual/the-gospel/worship-with-us?lang=eng&query=dress+standards+at+church

I suspect it was intended as a teaching thing rather than a judgemental condemnatory thing. When and how to bring up some things with investigators is tricky. I'd forgive the guy, try to take what is important in the idea(s), and move on. Getting offended helps nothing and no one. 

Actually, I think pointing out hypocrisy is a very Christ-like thing to do. Perhaps not in the sarcastic manner I did...

If public schools were disbanded, required education placed on the parents' shoulders, and homeschooling became de rigeur, we would stand the very real, very frightening possibility of seeing a generation of children with actual literacy, steeped in the beliefs of their parents, and perhaps even with an authentic love of learning.
The risk is simply too great.

I actually do have some experience with this, JJ. Not exactly what you're talking about, but not as different as you might think.
I was in my mid-40s and had been serving for several years is a few different callings that had kept me from anything like regular attendance at elders quorum. At that time, I was already the oldest active elder in the ward, one of the oldest in the stake, I think. Still, I looked forward to meeting again with my quorum when released from my calling. I suppose I took some weird satisfaction in this idea of being the ward's "eldest elder". In any case, I was very consciously avoiding any "Priesthood office envy" and working to find satisfaction and contentment with my place. And we did in fact have an excellent group of elders, so it was a great quorum to be a member of.
The day came for my release. The bishopric counselor released me with one breath, then in the next breath told me that, since I was now quite a bit older than the average age of the ward's elders, I was "invited" to attend the high priest group for third hour. This did not come as a total surprise, and I began rehearsing to this dear man (whom I had known since we first moved into the ward) how I appreciated the gesture, but I was comfortable with the elders and wanted to meet with my own quorum. I was only a few words into my spiel when this good brother interrupted me with, "Brother Vort, this is not an invitation. It is instruction from the stake president."
I am not proud to say that I was pretty unhappy about this. (I hope that) I didn't show this agitation to the bishopric counselor, but when I got home, my wife got an earful of my feelings on the matter. What sense did such instruction even make? If they wanted me in the high priest group, call me to be a high priest! I'm an ELDER! I belong with the ELDERS QUORUM! (I did not yet understand the operations of the Church and my place therein, and that the quorum I "belonged" with was actually the quorum that my stake president -- the presiding elder of the stake -- told me to attend.)
My wife calmed me down and convinced me to give it a try. So I did -- and was humbled. The members of the high priest group included many men I had been with and served with earlier in my elders quorum, and a better group of men I could not have asked for. I was also told, privately, by the HPGL (a former bishop) that he had requested that I and a good friend be included in the high priests group because we tended to be a bit more, um, voluble than the others, and he really needed more talk and discussion and brotherhood taking place in the group. I had been asked (aka instructed) to attend the high priests group because I was valued, because I could be of service to these good men whom I loved. I repented of my pride and happily accepted my status as a "visiting quorum member" for two or three years, until called to be an assistant in the group leadership. That was the same year my dad had died, so I asked my older brother, whom my father had ordained three or four years previously, to ordain me -- another great blessing.
If we seek office in the Priesthood out of pride or a desire to look good, we will lose the blessings of heaven. As the Lord said on another matter, we have our reward. I believe the same is true if we seek to avoid office, callings, or simple obedience to instruction for any such reason. However foolish I may have been, I'm glad I managed to humble myself and simply obey. I was blessed for my obedience, however I may have stumbled getting there.
I don't agree, for a few reasons. One thing is that different Priesthood offices have different quorums, and that should be respected. Another is that the quorums serve differing needs of their members, and the de facto age difference between elders and high priests mean that the groups actually have quite a difference in many of the member needs.
I think this is a counterproductive idea. Here is one example: In my high priests group, we had one member who was a humble, hard-working group member who probably did as much good for the group as any other single member. He was a few years older than me, and I was surprised when he told me that he was not a high priest, but an elder. I wondered a bit at that, but of course I didn't ask him. This man's wife was LDS but had not been active in many years, though he often tried to bring her to various activities. Some years later, I found out, somewhat by accident, that this good brother did not pay tithing because his wife objected to it, and he thought it improper to force the issue over her objections. Therefore, he could not get a temple recommend. For this reason, he couldn't be ordained a high priest.
How would it have been if a mandatory age of ordination to high priest had been established, and someone found out that this good brother was well past the mandatory age and yet was "only" an elder? That would simply not be acceptable. If pride is taken out of the equation, a mandatory age of ordination makes no sense.
If a mandatory ordination age for high priests would be a bad idea (which it would), this would be utterly disastrous, and on several levels. First of all, it would firmly embed the false doctrine that the office of high priest was more virtuous or powerful than the office of elder. Secondly, such a "punishment" is completely at odds with the nature and purpose of Priesthood office, which is not given as a reward nor removed as a punishment. Third, it would surely break down the bonds of brotherhood that should unite Priesthood holders.
If any "young high priest" starts getting prideful and saying uppity things, the bishop can call him in for a private consultation (or dressing down, as the case may warrant), and/or advise the stake president of such activity. I am sure the stake president will help the offending high priest achieve the necessary humility. Offending wives are not above receiving such humbling instruction, though the bishop may opt to try to go through the Priesthood holder before taking it upon himself to call her into his office and tell her to knock it off.

Innovation always spurs the creation of new jobs and technologies (look at the advent of the automobile or industrialization or computers). So I don’t think there will be a lack of jobs. 
What I find troubling is this “guaranteed income” movement. That regardless of whether you are employed the govt will provide so much money to you each month. It brought to mind Revelations 13:17 and the mark of the beast. 
“The more government can do for you the more in can do to you.” Thomas Jefferson

The more I hear about Bill Waterson, the more I like him.  He seems to be a sensitive, caring soul, willing to put himself out there to help folks.  I used to be ticked at him because he didn't defend his IP, which led to a generation of Ford trucks showing Calvin urinating on Chevys, but that was before I had learned some pretty cool stories about him from firsthand sources.  

When I was ten-years-old, I wrote Bill Watterson a letter.  He actually wrote back a very short, but personal reply written on Calvin and Hobbes stationery.
I also lost most of my Calvin and Hobbes books over the years, but my wife got me this for our one-year wedding anniversary:
https://www.amazon.com/Complete-Calvin-Hobbes-Bill-Watterson/dp/1449433251/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1513868405&sr=8-1&keywords=calvin+and+hobbes+collection

When I was ten-years-old, I wrote Bill Watterson a letter.  He actually wrote back a very short, but personal reply written on Calvin and Hobbes stationery.
I also lost most of my Calvin and Hobbes books over the years, but my wife got me this for our one-year wedding anniversary:
https://www.amazon.com/Complete-Calvin-Hobbes-Bill-Watterson/dp/1449433251/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1513868405&sr=8-1&keywords=calvin+and+hobbes+collection

Ready for tonight!

Also, the Mormon connection.

 

The missionaries are people, just like you.  They aren't perfect.  Believe me, though, I know how you feel.  
Know this, though.  They may "suck", but they ARE trying to help you.  They WANT to help you.  If you want help, open your heart and tell them how they can help you within the confines of their abilities.  Otherwise, you'll have to find help yourself.
Be aware that attitude and openness affects a person's ability, and willingness, to help you.

SALT LAKE CITY — Tim Allen said he nearly walked out of a performance of “The Book of Mormon” musical, but hopes Utahns won’t do the same to him Oct. 20 when he comes to the Eccles Theater in Salt Lake City.
Ahead of his stand-up comedy performance, the actor and comedian spoke with the Deseret News sharing his thoughts on conservative TV characters in Hollywood. Allen also spoke about Mormons, his faith and his stand-up comedy career.
https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865690838/Tim-Allen-talks-Mormons-stand-up-comedy.html

That same-sex couples would be sealed in the temple.  That isn't just a "small step" in doctrine.  How can you be Mormon and wish the church to move away from God?

"230 years ago today 41 delegates to a convention in Philadelphia, after nearly 4 months of deliberation and debate, signed the Constitution of the United States.  Some of the signers of the U.S. Constitution, including George Washington, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton, later testified in their own words of the divine assistance of "providential agency", that "Almighty hand", or the "finger of God"  toward establishing the Constitution.  And we Latter-day Saints have been told  by the Lord Himself in the Doctrine and Covenants, Section 101:80 that He established the Constitution of this land by the hands of wise men whom He raised up unto that very purpose.  Since that revelation was given in 1833, almost every latter-day prophet and many apostles have testified of the importance of our understanding, upholding, and abiding by the principles of the U.S. Constitution. President David O. McKay said it this way: “Other than being one in worshiping God, there is nothing in this world upon which this Church should be more united than in upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States." (The Instructor, Feb. 1956, p. 34)

Ha! I thought I would have nothing-zero-zilch-nada-goose egg to contribute to this thread, but I just thought of one.
Monk.

The most problematic Mormon cultural problem in my opinion is the tendency to complain about Mormon cultural problems.

I wonder if one reason divorce is still pending is because hubby has had it with wifey's idiocy and has quit trying to convince her otherwise. He may have decided that if she wants to leave him, he's better off without her. I would find it hard to blame him in this case.

Welcome, brother. To reiterate what others have said:
Prepare to serve a mission. Whether or not you actually serve a mission, the preparation will change your spiritual life forever. Talk to your bishop about your desire to serve a mission. He can help you to know the possibilities and can guide you along that path. Also, desiring to serve a mission is a good thing, especially for a Priesthood holder, which you hope soon to be. You are to be credited for having such a desire. But remember that serving a mission is not a measure of your standing before God. If you can serve a mission -- great! If you can't serve a mission -- don't worry about it. Just follow God's will as best you can.

Fair enough.  I will share my personal story of growth.
Wife and kids embarked into things 4-H, and we got chickens and turkeys and stuff.  When it was fall, I got the mixed blessing of being sent to the meat processing folks, turn some of our chickens into "chicken".  Wife already knew all this stuff, but daughters and I learned.  We all cried as we loaded them up.  It was a somber and quiet ride back.  Wife taught daughters where their food comes from, and we're all more mature now.
That wasn't the story - here's the story:
The next spring, they sent me again, with more chickens.  These chickens weren't culled in the fall.  We kept them through the winter.  I was loading them up at 5am, shivering in the cold, making sure they would have protection from the wind as I drove to the plant.  Because you treat life with respect, and making critters suffer, even if they're going to be dead in an hour, isn't what you do.   As I loaded them up, several things dawned on me.  First, they'd been in our barn the entire winter, which had been a heck of a lot colder than this morning.  That was fine - chickens are just fine pretty much no matter how cold it gets - as long as they're dry and out of the wind.  But it wasn't like they were out frolicking in the sun eating bugs.  When you're livestock, winter is something you endure and live through - not something you particularly enjoy.  It's a law of reality.
It also dawned on me that these chickens had been perfectly ready to go to the processors last fall, and they had endured the winter because I had NOT taken them to be processed.  That was the personal growth I'm talking about - these critters were born to live and then die and be food.  It was their nature.  Their God-given purpose.  
It dawned on me that these tiny-brained feathery critters understood this better than I did.  I anthromorphized a discussion with them when I got back.  
Wife: How did they do?
Me: Just fine.  They weren't happy with me though.
Wife: What do you mean?
Me: They kept calling me fat boy.  They said "It's about dang time.  Wake us up early to take us on a drive that should have happened last year.  We were cold last winter, fat boy."
I learned about stewardship over the earth and the creatures that crawl upon it that day.   I learned about the law of the harvest.   I got no better way to explain it than this.  If you still don't get it, maybe it takes actually raising something and killing it to teach this lesson.
The firefighters did right by the piglets, and the farmers did right by the firefighters.  To have let those piglets die would have been unethical.  To expect the saved piglets to be anything besides pigs, would have been to ignore the law of the harvest.

So, this is what Star Wars fans have to say...
Star Wars was great in that it had many heroes all with very diverse strengths and weaknesses that they all must come together and bring their own strengths to the table to successfully fight the enemy.  Each hero - from the powerful Jedi, to the measly fighter pilot - comes out of the battle having provided a uniquely important role in the victory.  The Disney movie is like Star Wars was written for the writer's girlfriend who wants to be the hero for the movie.

I have never understood very well the concept of "validating feelings". What if the feelings are invalid? If my mother-in-law tells me that my hair looks nice and I take that as a mortal insult, I am wrong. Period. My feelings are not valid. They are stupid. My wife might acknowledge that, yes, I do in fact feel the way I feel. But for her to "validate" my feelings in such a situation? Sheer lunacy. Her duty is to day, "Sweetheart, you are taking offense where none was intended, and in fact where none was even given." If she says, "Oh, you poor dear, having to put up with such nasty insults!", she is doing me a disservice, not to mention her mother.
It seems to me that truth trumps "validation", especially in cases where the person seeking "validation" is acting irrationally. I'm happy to consider reasonable opposing views.