Crypto

Welcome!
Mormons tend to be pretty conservative across a spectrum of issues; and “Sunday dress” is no exception.  There’s sort of an unspoken cultural standard that men wear ties and women wear skirts or dresses.  
This obviously can create some incoherence when you see women feeling subliminal pressure to wear—for example—a denim skirt rather than a much more formal pantsuit.  I’ve never known a male church leader to make it A Thing, though; and I’m sorry it was brought up in a way you found embarrassing.  I think, though, that if pushed there isn’t a Mormon who would say that they’d rather you not come at all than come in pants.
If you find LDS teaching correct and find Mormon meetings edifying overall, then I’d encourage you to keep right on going wearing whatever attire you sincerely believe to strike the right balance between respect and comfort.  
If it makes you feel better, there’s kind of a reverse standard currently going on in legal circles.  In the courtrooms I practice in, a woman can wear whatever she wants and the judge won’t say “boo”—but heaven help the male attorney who crosses the bar without a suit jacket.

Heh, I learned from history that the founding fathers didn't agree with the original beliefs of the founding fathers. Not only do we have Jefferson vs Hamilton, but also Federalist Papers Madison vs legislator Madison.

Also, the two things are not mutually exclusive.  Whoever the founders are, can you not agree with them and also learn from history?  Why, just the other day I learned that vibranium comes from Wakanda, and that they have been keeping it secret from us for 1000's of years!  I agree with their reasons, but I think Iron Man could seriously use a vibranium upgrade to his armor!  Why do Captain America and Black Panther get the monopoly on it?

PunBird acknowledges the fish joke.

Assumes facts not in evidence.
Maybe he's talking about Founders Brewing Company.  Maybe he's talking about the founders of formal Agnosticism (is there such a thing?).  There's something called "Founders Ministries" - maybe it's about those founders.
What if it's a type-o and this is all about flounders!?  Maybe this post was made just for the halibut! (sorry, couldn't resist)

An agnostic Brit walks into a Mormon forum and starts a poll about the founders of the US constitution?  Add a priest and a Rabbi to the story, and you've got the fixins' of a really good joke... 
Welcome Barry!  What Zil said. 

Welcome, @barry scott!
I think you're gonna need to be a little more verbose in your OP if you want someone to answer your otherwise overly vague question.
Who exactly are "the founders"?  What are their "original beliefs"?  And what has history taught that you view as contrary to those beliefs (or something founded on those beliefs?) and therefore requiring change?
Without all that (and possibly more), no one could possibly provide you with a meaningful answer.

Hello all, I just thought you might like a little update
I appreciate everyone's responses and advice here. I was able to use it all to guide my discussion with the missionaries. They've been quite understanding of my silly questions and get that most of it is due to my poor, dear parents' fears that I would end up in a "cult" like they did.
Few updates:
My sister has been my biggest cheerleader in all this. I never thought that would happen (you can see I had concerns she would be disappointed in me). She's extremely happy My sister talked to my parents and assured them that I am not joining a "cult" and that this is different from the unfortunate experience they had. They were relieved by her assurances and told me they are very happy I have made friends and family in the church. My mother even excitedly asked me about what my future in the church looks like. Again, never thought this would be possible. I'm so relieved that secrecy is no longer a concern. I am getting baptized this Saturday and all my doubts are gone. I walked out of the baptism interview on Monday feeling like a million bucks. I am the happiest I've ever been and I absolutely cannot wait until Saturday. I chose Dear to the Heart of the Shepard as one of my hymns and every time I hear it I just want to cry with happiness. The missionaries are just about done with the program, and when I see how many dear friends I've made in the church will be there, I am overwhelmed with joy. A fellow recent convert is baptizing me and he is so excited and humbled that I asked him to do it; the elder who interviewed me is doing my confirmation and he was so shocked and happy as well.  Long story made short, my family is happy, my doubt are gone, I'm getting baptized on saturday and I'm happier then I've ever been Thanks again, all. 

I believe this is a different question. First, it was who gave the authority not to look to a single human organization. Now, it's who gives the authority to interpret scripture.  And, I suppose this is the crux of the matter. Has it always been intended that all God's people would know his word, his will, his way, or was it meant for go-betweens to mediate? When Jesus told his disciples to go and make more, was he speaking to the leaders, and only the leaders? When Paul tells the Corinthians to discern the spirits as prophetic words are spoken, was it only the leaders who did this?  LDS also most agree with me on this. The priesthood is not for the elite. Approving leaders ordained by God is sustained by all members. So, it's not an arbitrary matter of taken authority meant for another, but rather that faith is both corporate and personal, just as God is both transcendent and intimate.
A friend of mine converted to Catholicism (Byzantine Rite). Recently he posted that when he did so (he's a former minister) he gave up his right to interpret scripture. That now falls on church hierarchy, for him. I do not begrudge him his belief, but my walk with God has always been more direct and accessible than that. I can come to him and his throne of grace boldly. I can embrace and understand his word in like manner.

Modesty is a form of Courtesy.
All civilizations adopt social rules of courtesy, ethics, morals etc... Some of which may be different from one another (Such as cultures where partial nudity is not sexualized). This forms a baseline of expectations for people to interact with each other. It's purpose is simple, to create an environment where they and others can get along, and feel safe with each other (arguably the first safe space...). Courtesy communicates non-aggression or aggression and other such information (You bet you can make a long list!). Regardless of agreement or disagreement with what others view is appropriate courtesy, if you wish to coexist and communicate with others effectively it is important to understand what others think when it comes to courtesy. In this context Modesty has more to do with getting along with others. 
Suggesting modesty doesn't always mean that you are objectifying another person, or victim shaming them. 
 

Because you live in Antarctica, or in the jungles of Borneo, or at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, or on the surface of the moon, or somewhere else that isn't 21st-century America, where literally everything is sexualized, including the male human body.

I agree with everything except this one little thing. I think they often times coexist. Science is not truth, is not faith....but a very good tool for getting closer to it.

I'm not sure LDS are bad at it. It's more that most non-LDS don't know any LDS folk. Of those that do, many may choose not to broach religious topics. So, among traditional Christians, it is known that LDS claim to be the true church and that Joseph Smith said that God said that the rest of us are abominable. That's totally lacking in nuance, but it's probably the general perception. What to do about it? If opportunity presents itself, ask. "Hey, you know I'm Mormon. Have you heard what my church believes about being the true church?" If they respond affirmatively, ask them what they have heard, and then offer the needed nuance. If not, then you can simply say, "Well, yeah, we believe God has given us his authority--that we are his authorized church." When they ask about the others, you might indicate that there is actually a lot of agreement on many issues and beliefs, and that you are thankful for all truth, wherever it may be found.

Yep.  Jews don't recognize Jesus as the Messiah.  When He shows up again, He'll probably clear that up for them.   Catholics believe they are Peter's successor, and theirs is the church Christ started.  Protestants reject that notion for all their various reasons.  Evangelicals take their authority from Matthew 18:20 and run with it.  Mormons figure Christ basically pressed a reset button back in the 1830's and started everything up again with our church. 
I might be painting with too broad a brush here, but yes, authority is big. 

👍  Sounds like a good book.  

I think I largely agree with the idea you attribute to Lawrence, with this tweak:
As a missionary, I taught that the three defining bases of Mormonism were priesthood/authority (exclusive), living prophets (exclusive), and revelation/inspiration (not exclusive, but superior in both quality and quantity).  So while I would agree that Mormonism is not the exclusive repository of *all* truth and that there are staggering amounts truth and goodness in all Christian denominations—yet, in overall goodness and “truthiness”, I fully expect Mormonism to meet or exceed them all.
It may also be worth noting, in response to the notion that authority is all that separates Christianity versus modern Judaism; that if this truly is a Christian notion then it still hasn’t made for very good Judeo-Christian relations throughout history.  

I guess this seems so obvious to some of us that it never occurs to us that any reasonable person would think otherwise. Of course the Church doesn't claim to be "the sole container of truth"! Having a "fullness of truth" doesn't mean being the unique source or receptacle of all available truth, or even of having possession of all truth. Indeed, if the larger world (especially the larger world that considers itself Christian) did not possess many truths, our work as a Church would be immensely more difficult, seeing as how we would have no common ground with anyone.

The title is actually that of a book by Gary Lawrence, and LDS member, former bishop, and professional analyst. He grapples with the most common accusations, "Anti" attacks, and questions, mostly that would come from traditional Christians. Perhaps the biggest take away from his writing is that the LDS claim to be the one true church is meant to indicate the church's unique authority, not that it is the sole container of truth. Other Christians, including myself, may not agree or appreciate the belief. However, focusing on authority gets to the heart of LDS vs. traditionalist disagreement. In fact, even between Protestants, Catholics, and the Orthodox, the real issue is authority. One could even argue that authority is what divides Jews and Christians (does Jesus have authority as Messiah and Son of God or not?).
THOUGHTS?

Thinking humility sucks means one has a humility problem.  

I readily admit that I do not know everything. The longer i'm around the more I know that I don't know. 
If you really want to get down to it, all approximations are untruths because there are exceptions and approximations don't accurately represent an absolute truth. That being said, clearly a majority of accredited boy scout summer camps had a majority of boys attend and a quite small amount of girls participating in non-staff positions over the course of the existence of Boy Scouting. (Generally Staffs, and Adults are considered to be more likely responsible individuals in most aspects of society)

My opinion. Absolutely not. Until you are officially divorced you are not available for dating. In fact when I was going through a divorce...a very close friend who was also a Stake President at the time said to me: Wait at least one year after divorce before dating. During that first year you are extremely vulnerable and can make decisions based on feelings that have nothing to do with the way you feel towards anyone.
Best advise I have ever received.

For the record, the vocabulary I learned in public schools was barely sufficient to support most basic aspects of adult life. My post-high-school vocabulary is vastly larger. Same with the physics, chemistry, and math that I learned in public schools, barely sufficient to help me in adulthood.
Scouting teaches basic life skills. You can be an adult without knowing how to tie more than two or three knots. You might even navigate most of adulthood successfully. But heaven help you if you decide to take a job as a trucker and need to secure a load, or want to go camping or fishing or hunting or to the beach and can't tie anything more than a square knot.

I do not believe that the changes in Boy Scout policy were the main force behind this at all. For this reason, I think plans have been in place since before 2013. I would not at all be surprised if FB and Q12 discussions of this started no later than 2010. In fact I suspect it was discussed with stake holders including current BSA National Chair Charles W. Dahlquist back in 2004-2009 when he was YMGP.
 
The driving forces behind this are most likely the following.
 
1. The Church has, for a broad number of reasons, never implemented scouting outside the US and Canada. The Church wants the same youth program world-wide, and an end to spend more on a boy in SLC than one in Aba, Nigeria, at least as much as can be done.
 
2. The mission age change of 2012, the change in what youth can do in the temple last year, increased emphasis on the role of youth in findibng names for temple work, and many other things mean a change in the way theyouth program works is wanted.
 
3. A big, big complaint, most often from femanists, but in some ways a doorway to Mormon feminism, was that the programs for boys and young men cost way more than for girls and young women. The Primary budget mainly went to cub scouts and 11-year-old scouts. There was no Young Women medallion equivalent to an eagle court of honor. In fact girls and women just were not getting awards at the level of boys, and those merit badge patches were not cheap.
 
4. The Church decided in 1991 to pay for every baptized boy to be in scouting. There were active boys in my ward who showed up to Church who never came to scouting. Then there were baptized boys whose families went inactive when they were 9, yet the Church kept paying for them to be in scouting another 8 years. If the Church ran a program all on its own, this outside cost would not factor in.
 
5. 11-year-old scouts. In the 1990s when the Church moved to a braod primary curriculum designed to be friendly for branches like the one my fiancee is in, it created a system where one primary class could be easily done for all children ages 8-12. Still my ward normally does one class per age, but if you are low on teachers, or have very few children in an age, you can easily combine. Yet, with 11-year-old scouts you had a single-sex group that was always limited to just one year. Most of the time I was an 11-year-old scout I was the only one. This just makes a bad schedule, because at least once a month there is a combined activity which is only open to youth 12 and up. My second 11-year-old scout leader was a recent convert who went totally inactive about two weeks after he was called. Or maybe he moved away. I am not sure I was ever clear, except he was gone, but with the scout master and the primary president both figuring the other was overweeing the matter, nothing happened for 5 months. 
 
6. Scouting was built on a model for larger troops than most LDS wards could support. This has become harder with falling fertility rates, and rising life expectancy. My ward may still have lots of families with 4 and 5 children, but we only have 1 with 7 children, while when I was young there were at least 3. I am not sure my stake has any families with over 10 children, there were multiple such families when I was growing up. 
 
 
 

note also to @Crypto
The issue is not just gender-segregated troops.  IT IS THE PROGRAM ITSELF.  This is supposed to be a Boy Scouts program and the announcement says it is going to remain a Boy Scouts organization.  So, having girls in the same program brings the question which I asked the BSA via email:
Which of this is true:
1.)  The Boys Scout program is going to be used by girls in the female troops, therefore, girls are going to be mentored to be the best boy they can be.
2.)  The Boys Scout program is actually not a program designed to maximize the natural strengths of boys to become productive adult Men.  It's just a program that is not designed with a specific gender in mind.
3.)  Boys and Girls are the same.  They're not different in any way except one of them end up getting pregnant when they are put in close proximity to each other.

4) The Boys Scout program is structured to create confident leaders by training them to do hard things autonomously and earn the respect of peers and adults. It allows for flexibility in the local units to accommodate a variety of interests and goals of charter organizations.
The Church continues to teach that men are different from women by divine design, yet produces the exact same curriculum for the women's group and the men's group. By having them meet separately, that material is then tailored for the specific needs of each sex. It's a pretty clever system. One might even say it's inspired.