dprh

You aren’t coming off as confrontational, just interesting.  That’s why I keep pushing back.   

Here is it...
I dislike white shirts... they stain and discolor too easily.  (and ties... who thought tying an noose around ones neck to start the day was a good idea?)
From various leaders both local and general it seems clear that white shirts and ties are what is expected from priesthood holders (barring some local exception)
Therefore I express my self and exercise my agency to follow and meet the expectation.
I also realize that not everyone agrees with me, and it is not my place to make any kind of judgment.  (Unless some leader delegates to me [like find worthy priesthood holders in white shirts and ties to help with the sacrament]).
So I totally get the idea of not likening what you are expected to wear, but for me I will try to meet the expectation place on me by those I trust and respect... because that is the kind of person I am, and the kind of person I want to be.

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.

In this and every other Christian church that has been around for more than a century or so, the tradition was that people come to communal Sunday worship services wearing what they called their "Sunday best". In a historical context, people living, say, 150 years ago typically owned several sets of clothing, including work clothing that got muddy and wet, warm clothing and a coat for cold weather, possibly lighter and more comfortable wear for relaxing at home or outdoors, and usually a set of "nice" clothes to wear to important social events (and to church). If you were wealthy and owned e.g. a ball gown or a smoking jacket, it would be considered ostentatious and in very poor taste to wear such an outfit to church. Similarly, if you could not be bothered to kick the pig manure off your boots before coming to church, that would be considered disrespectful. This was a basic societal convention understood by all: When you go to church, you wear your Sunday best.
In a more modern context, textiles have become so amazingly inexpensive that even poor people usually own many sets of clothing, perhaps a closetful (or more). But along with this bounty has come, strangely enough, a coarsening of standards of dress, such that many (dare I say, most) churches today have few or no expectations for how their congregation dresses, except maybe that they DO dress. (I'm sure there are California congregations where even this is optional, perhaps frowned upon.) T-shirts and demin jeans with holes are de rigeur. You would not attend your sister's wedding reception dressed in rags, but apparently it's fine to attend a communal worship service of the Savior dressed like that.
Women wearing pants is something that has come about largely in my lifetime. I'm sure women did wear pants before I was born—I've seen enough '50s movies to confirm that the idea was not utterly alien to them—but it seems like it was the '70s when the women's pantsuit carved out its niche. So at this point, it's hardly new, but also hardly traditional.
I'm sure there are some people, probably mostly women, who insist that a woman wear a dress to church, and that anything else is unacceptable, even sacrilege. But I don't know any of them, or if I do, I don't know that I know any of them. In general, few people seem to care much what women wear to church; as others have pointed out, men are expected to follow a far stricter dress and grooming code (official or otherwise) than women
So here's the complaint. It's not that a woman DARE to wear PANTS to Church—how awful! No. It's fundamentally that the women involved are doing their best to stick their metaphorical middle finger at Church conventions and those Saints who find them valuable. It's like a four-year-old's tantrums, but carried out by adults who are supposed to be helping carry the load and move the work along. And when, on top of that, they proclaim that this is all about letting women have their choice—they're lying (or incredibly foolish). No one believes them except for children who don't know any better and those who already share their beliefs.
tl;dr—No one cares if women wear pants to Church, but the Purple Pants People are looking to sow discord. That's the problem.

Grunt, I always appreciate your insights. In this case, I think there are some nuances you're missing.
I have a relative who is a grandfather, and whose oldest son is somewhat estranged from the parents. He and his wife have shed many tears over difficult events in the recent and not-so-recent past. I am privy to what's been going on, but for the purposes of this example, it doesn't matter who's right or wrong, or my opinions thereof.
This relative's second son is the father of a new granddaughter, and will be naming and blessing his daughter soon. My relative will be overjoyed if his oldest son just simply shows up for the event. How he's dressed won't even be a point of concern. Whether the oldest son joins the rest of the Priesthood holders in the circle is of secondary concern. All of us, really, are just hoping for the best.
This man has other adult children, all of whom seem to have a close and loving relationship with him. Expectations are doubtless higher for them. If another son were to come to the baby blessing in a flowered Aloha t-shirt and ragged jeans, I'm pretty sure my relative would ask him about it, maybe request that he go change his clothing.
Why the unfair double standard? Easy. We love our children and want the best for them. When a child is hurting or erring or off the path, we just want him back on. But when a child is already on the path and progressing, we raise our expectations and hopes.
As a general rule, we're simply happy to see people worshiping at Church and attempting to live their covenants. Where any specific person is on the trying-to-live-his-covenants continuum is not usually visible to us, so we just try to be supportive. As a person matures in the gospel, it is expected that he will conform in his behavior to the examples set by others. That goes triple on a public discussion website, where we don't really know the people we're talking to and have no good idea what their background is or what challenges they're dealing with.
And it's always helpful to remember that we may actually be the ones who are wrong.

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.

Who cares if they wear pants. If their local leader tells them it's okay then whatever. I don't remember the last time being bothered by a sister wearing pants. I honestly don't even remember seeing someone wearing pants... like ever. Being of Jewish descent I sometimes like to grow out my locks and beard. I think it is interesting how temple workers and missionaries can't wear beards or longer hair (as males). Especially since there are a ton of paintings with the Lord WEARING A BEARD. They asked us not to, so I am going to just comply. If I ever get asked to serve in the Temple I will make sure I am within the standards. I could make a stink out of and ask them to ask the Lord to change His mind BUT I am just not that interested. It's not a big deal to ME.

Indeed.  From the For the Strength of Youth pamphlet:
The word "pants" doesn't appear in that pamphlet, nor are there any guidelines about dresses, other than this:
 

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.

I did find this New Era article from 1974.  Even then they didn't come out with a straight answer.  The tldr summary is: Follow your local leadership.  Which in the author's case, her bishop was fine with her wearing pants if it wasn't an act of rebellion or protest.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/1974/12/q-and-a-questions-and-answers/when-and-where-is-it-acceptable-for-young-women-to-wear-pants-when-involved-in-church-related-activities?lang=eng

I did find this New Era article from 1974.  Even then they didn't come out with a straight answer.  The tldr summary is: Follow your local leadership.  Which in the author's case, her bishop was fine with her wearing pants if it wasn't an act of rebellion or protest.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/1974/12/q-and-a-questions-and-answers/when-and-where-is-it-acceptable-for-young-women-to-wear-pants-when-involved-in-church-related-activities?lang=eng

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.

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.

December 2012?  Wow - I now have almost 7 full years of not really caring about this issue.  I don't pay enough attention to what other people are wearing at church, to know if the women are wearing pants or not. 
I've only had faux rebellious wars with stuff like this.  Part of breaking in my new bishop, was to grill him mercilessly on whether pineapple belonged on pizza or not.  He thought quick, saying the only true position was that pineapple was ok on pizza, but only in the presence of meat, such as canadian bacon or ham.  Those who engage in activities with pizza that have pineapple as it's only topping, are in danger losing their soul.  I told him that I would adopt his position as my own, as one of the ways of sustaining him in his calling.
Far as I can tell, when it comes to doctrinal importance and relevance to personal salvation, women and pants arguments = pineapple on pizza arguments.  If you're all passionate about it, whatever.  I think you're missing the point, but I don't care, you do you.
I suppose I'll draw the line at public nudity (which does sometimes happen with uppity breastfeeders looking for a fight).

So that's why women don't wear pants to church!

How many Sunday School/Priesthood/Relief Society lessons have you been too where someone says they would like to see more people with tattoos, or smokers, or other types of people at church?  I've heard it more times than I can count in the last few years.  Why would we draw the line at pants?  The church is supposed to be a hospital for sinners, not a country club of saints.

[Hesitantly raises hand] 
Well, now you have.  
Our bishop was supportive—my wife has chronic health issues, and we already have more kids than he does.  It was actually kind of a nice opportunity to just counsel with our bishop generally and reflect on the fact that we were moving into a different phase of life.  
Also, FWIW—my urologist’s position was “yeah, this MIGHT be reversible, if you’re lucky—but don’t count on it; and, it’ll hurt.”

Delving into the Church’s history on the topic of birth control can get sticky. With just a quick internet search, it is clear that the issue leaves room for varying opinions among church members. So is using birth control a sin? Let’s talk. Be fruitful and multiply Adam and Eve Teaching Their Children by Dale Parsons As Latter-day Saints, we believe that the family is central to God’s plan, so naturally, having children to raise in righteousness has been encouraged throughout church history by apostles and prophets. In Genesis 1:28, we read that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were commanded to “Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.” Members of the Church today have been commanded to do the same. Brigham Young teaches that “there are multitudes of pure and holy spirits waiting to take tabernacles, now what is our duty?— to prepare tabernacles for them… it is the duty of every righteous man and woman to prepare tabernacles for all the spirits they can." Elder Christofferson teaches that “God ordained that men...
View the full article

That number continues to shrink, and also underfunding in the nation's remaining pension plans is a concerning thing.
2018 told us 22% of workers participate in a pension plan, but some of those (like me) are grandfathered in with companies that no longer offer them.  I can't find a source on how many companies with employees in the US still offer pensions.
 

Parley P. Pratt is sometimes called "the Apostle Paul of Mormonism." Oliver Cowdery baptized Parley in September 1830 and by 1835 Parley had been ordained as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. But our story takes place not long after Parley's baptism, around October 1830. The story starts with a revelation to the prophet Joseph Smith, which is now known as Doctrine and Covenants Section 32. The call to serve The revelation reads as follows: And now concerning my servant Parley P. Pratt, behold, I say unto him that as I live I will that he shall declare my gospel and learn of me, and be meek and lowly of heart. And that which I have appointed unto him is that he shall go with my servants, Oliver Cowdery and Peter Whitmer, Jun., into the wilderness among the Lamanites. And Ziba Peterson also shall go with them; and I myself will go with them and be in their midst; and I am their advocate with the Father, and nothing shall prevail against them. And they shall give heed to that which is written, and pretend to no...
View the full article

Legislated (forced) sharing of resources isn't charity.  It seems more like Lucifer's plan than Jesus'.

Today is Tuesday and I have already taken my garbage out twice this week. In the United States, the average person generates approximately 4.6 pounds of trash daily. So it's not just me. How can we create less waste? By replacing our current over-consumption habits with sustainable practices, we can make a lasting impact for good. Heavenly Father instructs his children to care for the earth that he has given us. In Doctrine and Covenants 104:13-14 we read, "For it is expedient that I, the Lord, should make every man accountable, as a steward over earthly blessings, which I have made and prepared for my creatures." Here is a list of 7 things you can start doing today to create less waste and become a better steward of the earth. 1. Bring your own to-go box and utensil kit Humans produce more than 14 million US tons of plastic foam yearly. It might feel odd at first, but bring your own to-go container (a Tupperware or jar) to restaurants helps to make an immediate impact....
View the full article

The average 401(k) balance by age
by Arielle O'Shea via NerdWallet -- January 31, 2019
A record number of 401(k) holders at Fidelity Investments hit millionaire status in 2018. Not one of them? You’re in very good company: A seven-figure 401(k) balance is the exception, not the rule.  In fact, the average 401(k) balance at Fidelity — which holds 16.2 million 401(k) accounts and is consistently ranked as the largest defined contribution record-keeper — was $106,500 as of September 2018.
If that still seems high, consider that averages tend to be skewed by outliers, and in this case, that number is being propped up by those rare millionaires. The median, which represents the middle balance between the highs and lows, is just $24,800.
The below numbers show how 401(k) balances increase with age, at least until participants start drawing on their money in retirement.
Ages 20-29
Average 401(k) balance: $11,600.
Median 401(k) balance: $4,000.
Ages 30-39
Average 401(k) balance: $43,600.
Median 401(k) balance: $16,500.
Ages 40-49
Average 401(k) balance: $106,200.
Median 401(k) balance: $36,900.
Ages 50-59
Average 401(k) balance: $179,100.
Median 401(k) balance: $62,700.
Ages 60-69
Average 401(k) balance: $198,600.
Median 401(k) balance: $63,000.
Read more at:  https://www.theladders.com/career-advice/the-average-401k-balance-by-age