carlimac

Your husband can say and feel what he chooses to say and feel. You have the right to discuss things of importance with your bishop, and you have the right to discuss your concerns with your Relief Society president. If he wishes to talk to his bishop or quorum president, he's welcome to do so.
In general, I'm a huge fan of husband and wife keeping their problems and dirty laundry very strictly within their own bedroom. I think such problems should rarely if ever be shared among family and friends, and since women are more likely to do this than men, this injunction applies more often to women. But in a case such as this, outside perspective is needed.
You're a grown-up. Your husband can make his desires known, but he can't stop you from talking with your bishop or Relief Society president (or anyone else, for that matter). If what you say is true (and I expect it is), your husband is traveling down a very dangerous slope at high speed, and his actions will result in great pain and probable tragedy for himself, you, and your children. I'd say you're fully justified in talking to a leader and getting some help.
I would suggest you contact someone else today. Like, pick up the phone right now and call your bishop. Maybe he can see you this evening. That's my advice.

That is not normal.
Feeling out of sorts is normal-- you did just move continents after all.  But not practically shunning your family and being THAT isolated.   In fact, most missionaries are required to write their families weekly.    Honestly, I would suspect a mental health issue.  
Have you asked your son what's going on?  Does he have any future plans?  

7-11 😁

I'll give a differing opinion here.  Early Morning Seminary was probably the worst choice I ever made.  I also did extensive after school activities and was up till very late at night.  The result of getting up so early stunted my growth (physically), and hurt my grades in several ways. 
If I had been allowed to do Seminary at home on my own time, for example on Weekends, I would have gotten more sleep, done better in school, and still graduated from Seminary.  Furthermore, as I actually had time on Weekends, I would have actually gotten something out of Seminary (as it was, I was normally half asleep at Seminary, and really didn't get anything beneficial from it, other than ending up passing out during my first and second period classes in high school, which didn't do much good for me academically).
I still got to BYU (now BYU-Utah), but if I could change something, I would want to have my parents not just ask, but beg, that I be allowed to do a home study program or something similar.  I don't think being in Seminary helped get into BYU, but the fact that I went to state in sports, was highly involved in other extracurricular activities, and then went on a Mission.  I don't think Seminary helped with my own spiritual growth as most of the time I was too tired to even know what they were talking about, much less get anything from it.  I got more from actually reading a manual, learning scripture mastery, and reading the scriptures themselves, all of which are part of the home seminary program.
I'm not advocating dumping Seminary, but I would advocate presenting your case to your Bishop and asking for an allowance to be able to have the home study program (with parental enforcement if necessary).  Even if you are on the home study program, you can STILL attend early morning seminary if you wish, the difference being, you are not enrolled there and still need to do your work.  However, if you enjoy the lectures and spirit, when you are not up as late at night, or when the sports seasons end, it means that you can attend but not have the pressure of having to attend.
IMO.
PS:  I still suggest doing and attending Seminary, but I can completely understand that 4-5 hours of sleep at night is actually more detrimental than helpful in many instances, especially for growing children and youth.  Being able to pay better attention to the material (in Seminary) in my opinion is more important than simply going to attend Seminary but not being able to pay as good attention in Seminary or at school.

Handbook 2 Section 19.1.1 (bold mine):
 
The Primary President should absolutely be notified in advance that someone in the primary will be released.

The Primary president needs to know when someone under her purview is being released or called. I have no citation for this beyond obvious common sense, nor do I believe any other citation is needed. This seems about as duh as it gets.

The primary president should know, and should be counseled with about replacements if the Bishop does it right. 

This is a "use your judgement situation".
I would say that is is a good / polite thing to let the Primary President know that she's going to be short helpers one teams that she's worked so hard to build/maintain.  Kids also bond with their teachers.  Its BEYOND frustrating to work so hard building those teams only to have them yanked out suddenly as if you and your program don't matter.

70 year old Sister in the ward: “We’re thankful for the rain that is replenishing the earth. And we’re grateful it’s not snow!” (Actual chuckles from the congregation)

70 year old Sister in the ward: “We’re thankful for the rain that is replenishing the earth. And we’re grateful it’s not snow!” (Actual chuckles from the congregation)

Maybe...but I think there is a invaluable skill set it is trying to instill.
The thing that is being pushed behind many of the goal setting is prayerful revelation.  To listen to the Holy Ghost and get revelation and inspiration on what your goals should be.  If one can learn to truly recognize and identify the Holy Ghost they can develop and unshakeable testimony.

Can’t love this enough!!

The Filipino kind where people just show up without needing an invite... we usually have around 100 people and I usually spring for a water slide bouncy house and I spring $3 for an ironed-on bday t-shirt for giveaways to the kiddos - I make 40 t-shirts every bday.  So the kiddos get all good and wet and then they dry up and then change into the t-shirts and we all sing happy birthday around the cake and take a picture.  It's awesome.  Hah hah.
So my mother-in-law has been trying to find all the shirts for every year so she can make some kind of quilt for my son's 18th birthday... she couldn't find all the shirts so she ended up ditching the project.  But it would've been the craziest awesome thing to do because... and now I'm gonna cry again... for the first time in my son's life, he will not be spending his bday with us next year as he will be on his mission.  Waaaaaaa!

They probably didn’t know about them. Actually only a very small percentage of wards and stakes have access to those camps. It’s mostly a western US advantage. Here in the east and the rest of the world we go through the process every year of having to find a place for the girls to have camp. It has cost my girls at least $100 out of pocket each to attend. 

That was the old way. I’m talking about the changes made Sunday night. If wards are still strict and demanding on achievements, that is there deal, not the church’s

...holy cow...

To all of you arguing over costs... THIS IS IRRELEVANT because you are all arguing over a faulty premise - that the amount of money spent on a program is indicative of how much "precious" the program is.  This is Bull Hokey.  Do you think the Temple in Orlando is more precious than the Temple in Manila because they spent millions of dollars more on it?  Of course not.  Likewise, whether YW get more money or YM get more money is IRRELEVANT.  What is relevant is the activity itself.
Scouts cost money.  A lot of money.  It is a rigorous merit-based program that requires specific activities.  You don't just go to camp once a year.  You go to camp as many times as is required to achieve a certain merit.  The Church did not come up with these merits and therefore cannot eliminate certain activities and still get merit.
Personal Progress doesn't have to have a lot of money to run superbly or it can spend more money than Scouts if leadership designs it to be.  That is because every single activity in Personal Progress is determined by Church Leadership and if there's one thing the Church is really good at - it's operating on shoe-string budgets.  I know this because I used to be the Activities Coordinator and I had a $300 annual budget to plan 6 ward activities for the year.  My kid's birthday party costs twice more than the annual activities budget.
Regardless of how much money you spend on your specific programs, what makes it a good program is determined by the quality of youth graduating out of the program.  If you spent $300/year on your kid in the program and he/she's just as obnoxious and useless to society as he/she was going in, that program is a crappy program.  If you spent $10 on the program and your obnoxious and useless kid came out of it a paragon of virtue it was a great program.
 
 

That may be true to a certain extent but it isn’t a message that is very clear.In many wards there has been enormous leader pressure to accomplish the goal or project. Our last YW President put a huge emphasis on completing Personal Progress and devoted at least one activity a month towards it. There was absolutely no “this is optional” message there. I don’t know how the girls who just didn’t respond to the checklist approach to progressing personally could not feel like losers. Especially when the ones who finished it all in their first year of Beehives were praised and honored copiously!
 
My oldest daughter who is Primary President in her ward already predicts that the activities on the Primary level will be based on the “noise” of several squeaky wheel parents in her ward. The quieter families will just have to go with the flow.

This is how I interpret what you have written.
Your sons are priceless therefore they deserve whatever can be taught them whatever the cost and your daughter will benefit because her identity is based on what kind of "priceless" husband she will marry.
Do you ever consider that your future daughters-in-law might have some qualitities in them that might benefit your sons? If so, how do you think these young women will learn to possess these qualitites?
M.

This betrays a fundamental, very deep misunderstanding of what it means to ask someone to dance, and in fact of what a dance is (or is supposed to be).
A dance request is not a marriage proposal or an invitation to retire to anyone's boudoir and remove clothing. A dance request is fundamentally a request for social interaction, not much different from trying to strike up conversation.
In former times, women never asked men to dance; such would have been seen as desperate. So the man assumed all the responsibility for initiating a dance request. The woman's part in this arrangement was to graciously accept. A woman did not have to accept a dance invitation, of course; but refusing a man would be equivalent of turning on her heel and walking away when the man was engaging in polite conversation. Only a boor would do such a thing; such gracelessness would never have been considered acceptable behavior in any kind of polite society. If a woman was simply not dancing that evening, then of course she could refuse a potential dance partner; but in that case, she had better not dance with anyone else, either. Which would lead to the question of why she's at a dance if she's not dancing...
If young women were being instructed never to turn down a dance offer, then good for them and their leaders. They were being instructed on very basic and (what should have been) very obvious etiquette. For a woman to turn down a man's dance request is utterly churlish and almost certainly inexcusable.
But then, today's so-called dances are ridiculous affairs, even or perhaps especially at Church. "Loud" and "vulgar" are the operative terms at dances today. Perhaps such behavior as a young woman bluntly turning down a young man's dance request is acceptable, as presumably would be a young man pointing mockingly and laughing at some hapless young woman. If so, we must question whether the Church ought to have anything to do with such "dances", and almost certainly arrive at a negative answer.

It had to do primarily with paying the BSA dues.
I'm stunned at all of the bitching and moaning I have heard over the years about how "favored" the boys were. Bull crap. (I could speak more plainly, if you like.) As the father of sons, I say that if the boys needed BSA to become the men they needed to become, then we pay whatever price is necessary. My boys are priceless. And as the father of a girl, I say exactly the same thing. Who do you think my daughter will marry, spend her life with, and bear my grandchildren with? Spending money on the boys benefits her as much as it does them.
If it were the girls whom the leadership had decided needed more money, you would never have heard a peep, much less endured the interminable hand-wringing we have seen through the years. Witness the girls' and women's restrooms vs. the boys' and men's. Witness how the Relief Society in any given ward has typically been given three times the budget of the elders and high priests combined.
Guess it's okay if the girls and women appear to be favored. It's only when vulnerable teenage boys seem favored that the fangs are bared.

At first I thought, oh dear this is not helping! Why do we need to define what kids do anyway under the label of a church program? But by the end when they announced the medallions and plugged in the numbers I thought, ok this makes more sense as a “program” or “initiative” as they call it. 
I’m still thinking the transition will be brutal for some wards. And Personal Progress was just a catchier title than “Children and Youth”. Again, kids who respond to goal challenges will like it. Others who just want to do their own thing without tracking progress may feel nagged by it. I guess it will be helpful for some who struggle with motivation or just don’t know where to start with self improvement. 
Also, as with ministering, I still feel Church leadership doesn’t trust us because we have to be assigned to serve each other and because there has to be a structured program to teach our children how to improve their lives.  Does this mean we we’re still unwise because we have to be compelled to do this stuff?

Once I start playing the “why did he say what he said?” or “what did she really mean” game, there’s no logical stopping point until sink into a sort of nihilism wherein I don’t believe anyone about anything.
Speaking generally:  sure, peer pressure to testify of the Church—or the Gospel—or Jesus—or one’s love for one’s family—is always a potential factor.  But I think I owe it to most people to at least go into an encounter taking what they say at face value.  If I want to dig a little deeper, and it’s important to me; I can always take them aside one-on-one later to ask them to clarify or provide additional perspective.
Personally, I avoid the phrase “I know the church is true”—first, because I generally avoid the phrase “I know” in testimonies (I believe far more than I know); and second, because the more I parse the phrase the less I understand what “the church is true” actually means.  (That the prophet is a bona fide prophet?  Fine, say that.  That there is safety in adhering to and living the lifestyle the Church promotes?  Fine, say that.  That the Church has a unique claim to divine favor and inspiration and authority?  Fine, say that.  But I don’t know what “the Church is true” means, anymore than I know what “the American Bar Association is true” means.)

I didn't notice "Latte" either. But I served my mission to Italy, and "latte" is Italian for "milk" (which is why the coffee concoction is called a "latte"—apparently, it contains milk). So despite living near Seattle, I'm not sure I would have made the coffee connection anyway. I would more likely have thought it was the Church of the milk of gospel truths.

My guess would be...
Latte..