yjacket

The fact is old folks were once upon a time....teenagers. We remember how we were, and how our friends were, and so wouldn't trust our own teenage selves. At least not all of the time. Teenagers can be sneaky lil twerps one minute and the most awesome people in the world the next moment. Keeps the old folks on their toes, and one day, they'll be the old folks with memories of their teenage selves, turning an eye askew on the newest crop of teens. 

Absolutely; some people say that socialism/communism works on paper-but that is totally wrong-it doesn't work on paper and it can't work on paper. Besides the moral arguments against socialism there is a bigger practical problem of socialism.  
The calculation problem.  The absolute basics of an economy is the ability of people to specialize and produce goods and services that other people need and want. I live in a house and would like to put up a fence. I can either ask friends to help me put up a fence or I can pay someone to do it.  The amount that I'm willing to pay someone else to put up my fence indicates how important it is to me that I have a fence put up.  Now we could all live like the amish and do barn-raising, but even the amish recognize that this only works in a limited fashion (they have businesses they run).  What if everyone now wants a fence . . .how do you prioritize who gets one first and who needs it the most?  The best solution is to allow prices to dictate that information to the market.
Without a price structure, people have no idea how important different things are and what businesses to start to solve the wants and needs of everyone else.  If the price of shoes is $.05 a pair, who is going to go into the shoe business, everyone would buy as many shoes as possible-but who is actually going to produce shoes and sell them for $.05 a pair?  That is why supply and demand are so important-it helps people understand where to focus their energies and where not to in order to earn a living and in the same process help out their neighbors.
It is why socialized medicine and the involvement in government into medicine will lead to disaster. People might say well everyone has health care.  But the unseen costs of socialized medicine are absolutely horrible. Where have all the modern advancements in medicine come from?  The US health care system. Compared to 100 years ago, health care is cheap. We couldn't cure cancer, now we can to a large extent.  Why? b/c of the profit motive.  Without a high enough incentive for companies and businesses to take lots of risk in developing solutions, cancer cures wouldn't exist.
 

??? Yes, I agree I have stated so.  You obviously have not read the topic-I expressed many times that I understood that according to the girl xyz happened, however that was her perception and that her perception was most likely wrong-specifically because of this.
Again, the point being that I highly doubted that the story was correct and in fact we know that the story was incorrect as the actual person posting the story was the daughter who lied and presented herself as her mother.  I had a high suspicion that something was off in the story and I was correct.
 ?? Completely illogical.  Are you arguing that I have to be her parent to tell her that drug use is bad?  That I have to be her parent to say that nothing good happens after midnight? Do I have to be her parent to say you should stay in school, get your homework done or any other host of things? 
Quite frankly, you know nothing and to lecture me about what is or isn't between parents/child/lord is a whole lot of hubris on your part. Just because it is a parents decision to let their kid smoke weed, doesn't make it a good decision.  There is this really insane dumb philosophy that has taken root in modern America where no one can speak out against xyz thing b/c well that decision is "between the person and their spouse or the person and the Lord". I don't need a PhD in sociology nor physiology or be a spiritual leader to recognize and give warning against the use of things that have the potential to be really bad.  
There is not one good reason for a child to be on Facebook-not one!  Oh, that's how my friends communicate . . .so what, if your friends all did drugs would you? Considering children are highly impressionable and can very easily bend to social pressure.
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2017/03/13/dcf-mom-of-teen-who-committed-suicide-in-facebook-live-watched-episode-unfold/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Megan_Meier
https://globalgrind.cassiuslife.com/4224039/teenage-couple-commits-suicide-days-apart-and-leaves-facebook-video/
And there was another one where some kid killed herself with a shotgun in front of her dad b/c of facebook bullying.  Facebook is in general a place that feeds people's narcissistic tendings and encourages people to be self-styled drama queens/kings.  I was bullied enough in school myself so why on God's green Earth would a parent give a child access to Facebook where they can be bullied after school at any point in time. Facebook and internet access for a child is not a need, it's a want and giving a child Facebook access is giving them a loaded gun and saying have fun!!!
And yes, I know you don't understand b/c as you said teenagers think differently than adults-that is fine.  I don't expect you to understand what I wrote
And I'll give you some advice Ffenix . . .go back to school and learn to respect your elders-you might just learn something from them.
You have no clue what you are talking about, I've been through more hell in my life than you can possibly imagine, I've had a stronger closer connection to God than you can possibly imagine.  I've been on this rock a lot longer than you have and with that I've learned quite a bit so when you are a parent and/or have grown up a little and become an adult in the world then you can join the adult conversation.
The OP lied, period end of story. 

Well the ultimate goal of a parent is to emancipate their children from them; i.e. train and teach them how to be self-sufficient, reliable, hard-working, civics minded individuals that can work independently and think on their own two feet. Until a child emancipates themselves (or you do it for them at age 18), the parent has much more stewardship.  But the stewardship at 18 is much less than at age 3. As a child grows, the amount of direction and control that a parent has over a child's life should gradually lessen and more and more responsibility for individual actions and decisions given to the child. The goal being to teach the child to be responsible for their own actions.
Once an adult the stewardship really takes a backseat, to more counsel and advice.  I love getting counsel and advice from my parents, b/c I have learned to rely upon their wisdom as they have experienced more of life than me-but that is all it really is-counsel and advice. They do not have stewardship over my life, they do not control it, I make my own decisions of what is best for me and my family. They have taught me that the One who does have authority over my life is God and that is where I should get the majority of my decision making from.
Now, I personally severely dislike the modern day mantra that is spouted by parents "I want my child to think for themselves"-when it comes to politics, religion, etc.  No, it is completely backwards thinking.
I carry out a very specific plan of indoctrination, yes I indoctrinate my children in how they should behave, in how they should act, in what religion they should be and how they should think politically. I live my life the way I do, b/c I believe it is the best way to live a life and as such I want my children to live a happy life, which comes from the concepts, principles and precepts that I have learned in my life.  I want to pass that knowledge and actions down to the next generation. I will know whether or not I have failed in my job as a parent when my children have children and they begin to raise them.  If they continue to pass down the same principles, I have succeeded, if not I have failed.
Indoctrination does not make children robots-they have the God-given gift of free agency so they will not, can not be robots.  But this much I can promise you, if I don't indoctrinate my children, someone will-and since God gave me charge over them-I'd rather do it than let the world do it.

Whether socialism in any form works or not is one matter (I personally think it will fail ultimately), but whether it is moral or not is another matter. It is not. Socialism is theft. Period.

While I don't believe finances is a reason for divorce; the fact of the matter is that financial decisions and arguments over finances is the #1 reason for divorce.
Unfortunately, this is a problem that should have been solved long, long ago with your wife and because it wasn't solved many moons ago it has caused a much, much bigger problem.
This is precisely why your children have problems-she has never let them be responsible for their own lives.  
This probably started when they were young and she wanted them to live a good life; not realizing that as a parent you can teach but you can't live their life for them-which is what she is trying to do.
This is also why (as much as people complain about rich inheritances) wealth does not pass three generations. The 1st generation worked hard, by the sweat of their brow and built something, the second generation has it a little bit easier but saw the hardwork of the parents and tries to do the same, by the time the 3rd generation roles around the kids are spoiled brats who can't do jack for themselves.  
The very wealthy families (who's wealth has passed down through generations) teach their kids very, very differently; kids who are slackers are cut off-everyone is expected to work hard, etc. 
I completely agree you need to get control of the situation-without causing a divorce.  The only way you are going to completely solve the problem is for you and her to get on the same page-for that, she needs to understand at a very deep emotional level the massive problems she is causing with your children's lives by providing them with financial funds (they will never be financially stable on their own, their own self-worth will be less, etc.).  I don't know how that is going to happen at this stage . . . 
Baring a complete mindset change on her part, probably the best you can do is find some compromise you both can live with.  Giving your wife 200k/year for the needs of the family is a lot of money; that isn't needs that is 200k/year for wants.   If you are providing 200k/year to her but then complaining about the 100k/year she gives to the kids-you are doing it wrong man.
Think of it this way . . . if as an employer you give your employees 50k/year and then they take 20k and blow it on shopping do you get upset at them?  No, b/c it is their money to do with as they see fit. If you give her 200k/year then you can't complain with what she does with the money as long as the actual needs not wants of your family is paid for. A huge part of this life is learning how to give people responsibility over things and then letting them fail or do with it how they see fit.  You have given your wife responsibility over 200k/year and obviously she is being irresponsible with that money (in your opinion and in mine-but not in her opinion).  
So what do you do? I don't know-this should have been solved a long time ago, if you don't nip things in the bud they can get real, real bad.
I would start of with obviously she doesn't need 200k/year so dial that back-what is appropriate, I have no idea, but obviously 100k/year isn't since she blows that on the kids.  No if you go from 200k to 100k/year that is probably going to cause some major problems.  Do you scale it back gradually or rip the bandaid off (which might be a  turniquet that is keeping blood from going everywhere).
And finally, is a divorce really going to solve this problem?  My guess is that a lot of things are tied together in your names and since you are fairly well off she will most likely get a significant portion of your income-which may amount to 200k/year??? In that case, she continues to do the same-except you've now lost your wife.
My condolences and good luck!

I have nothing to add, only that I would love to have 200,000$ a year to blow.

While I don't believe finances is a reason for divorce; the fact of the matter is that financial decisions and arguments over finances is the #1 reason for divorce.
Unfortunately, this is a problem that should have been solved long, long ago with your wife and because it wasn't solved many moons ago it has caused a much, much bigger problem.
This is precisely why your children have problems-she has never let them be responsible for their own lives.  
This probably started when they were young and she wanted them to live a good life; not realizing that as a parent you can teach but you can't live their life for them-which is what she is trying to do.
This is also why (as much as people complain about rich inheritances) wealth does not pass three generations. The 1st generation worked hard, by the sweat of their brow and built something, the second generation has it a little bit easier but saw the hardwork of the parents and tries to do the same, by the time the 3rd generation roles around the kids are spoiled brats who can't do jack for themselves.  
The very wealthy families (who's wealth has passed down through generations) teach their kids very, very differently; kids who are slackers are cut off-everyone is expected to work hard, etc. 
I completely agree you need to get control of the situation-without causing a divorce.  The only way you are going to completely solve the problem is for you and her to get on the same page-for that, she needs to understand at a very deep emotional level the massive problems she is causing with your children's lives by providing them with financial funds (they will never be financially stable on their own, their own self-worth will be less, etc.).  I don't know how that is going to happen at this stage . . . 
Baring a complete mindset change on her part, probably the best you can do is find some compromise you both can live with.  Giving your wife 200k/year for the needs of the family is a lot of money; that isn't needs that is 200k/year for wants.   If you are providing 200k/year to her but then complaining about the 100k/year she gives to the kids-you are doing it wrong man.
Think of it this way . . . if as an employer you give your employees 50k/year and then they take 20k and blow it on shopping do you get upset at them?  No, b/c it is their money to do with as they see fit. If you give her 200k/year then you can't complain with what she does with the money as long as the actual needs not wants of your family is paid for. A huge part of this life is learning how to give people responsibility over things and then letting them fail or do with it how they see fit.  You have given your wife responsibility over 200k/year and obviously she is being irresponsible with that money (in your opinion and in mine-but not in her opinion).  
So what do you do? I don't know-this should have been solved a long time ago, if you don't nip things in the bud they can get real, real bad.
I would start of with obviously she doesn't need 200k/year so dial that back-what is appropriate, I have no idea, but obviously 100k/year isn't since she blows that on the kids.  No if you go from 200k to 100k/year that is probably going to cause some major problems.  Do you scale it back gradually or rip the bandaid off (which might be a  turniquet that is keeping blood from going everywhere).
And finally, is a divorce really going to solve this problem?  My guess is that a lot of things are tied together in your names and since you are fairly well off she will most likely get a significant portion of your income-which may amount to 200k/year??? In that case, she continues to do the same-except you've now lost your wife.
My condolences and good luck!

@Carborendum
Anciently calendars were considered part of divine revelation.  But this was also an era where science and religion were thought to be more integrated.   For example, Zechariah (Father of John the Baptist) was serving at the temple as per a revealed calendar designating the day of his service.
By revelation we understand that the church was to be restored on April 6th 1830 (a date of Passover).  This date was by divine decree.   Some believe this particular date was set and fixed by G-d as part of his general plan – in other words it was fixed in time before the fall of Adam.  In consequence of the importance of this date there are some that believe Jesus was both born when April 6th fell upon the Passover date (according to the ancient calendars).  And that again Jesus was resurrected according to the same pattern a set in the doctrine of the “Passover”. 
I would be very careful in saying that there should be no connection to April 6 as a special time when it falls on the Sunday of Passover and deliverance.  Unless you have access to something that allows you to know for sure this is not important.
As a side note – As an amateur student of ancient and modern calendars – I do not have a great deal of faith in our current Gregorian Calendar.  I believe our current year is flawed and does not correctly reflect when Christ was born.   I also am not sure we really understand that much concerning the ancient calendars – especially the Enoch Calendar that seem to be what Jesus and his apostles were using.
 
The Traveler
 

I thought that the article was terrible, people get to worked up over their patriarchal blessings. 98% of the stuff is boiler plate that is in all patriarchal blessings with MAYBE a few extra nuggets thrown in. If you have read one you have read most.
Yes some patriarchs like to wax poetic but it's nothing to get worked up over or disappointed about.

Well you gonna pull those pistols or whistle dixie!

The Outlaw Josey Wales by Clint Eastwood. I put that one in my top westerns of all time category.

I agree with you; I just think there are much better ways to go about it than writing an article that starts off like a soft anti-Mormon diatribe.
I understand; but maybe those who have a little more 'umph' so-to-speak should kindly inform those who control the other aspects of the site.
What is the More Good Foundation?
More Good Foundation is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that helps Mormons (members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint) share their beliefs on the Internet. We operate websites and social media platforms in over 15 languages and provide tools and training to Universities, Institutes and Church Firesides. We work closely with and support other groups and foundations with like-minded missions from all over the world. More Good Foundation was created in 2005 as a solution to the overwhelming need for accurate information about the LDS faith on the Internet. It is operated by a small team of employees along with many volunteers.
 
We feel it is not too much to ask, in this age of enlightenment and open dialogue, to let us be the ones who tell who we are, what we believe, and why our cause is going forward in such a marvelous way.
With a quote from Ballard right below (see above).  And yet on the front page of https://mormonhub.com/ is an article with the title "I Hate My Patriarchal Blessing".  It's clickbait and certainly not a message that should ever be given considering what the https://www.moregoodfoundation.org/ supposedly stands for . . . I don't know maybe wolf in sheep's clothing?
Some people might read the article and find that oh at the end, it ends in a good place.  Yet most will see it, read a few sentences and move on.  Is that the image the moregoodfoundation wants to cultivate?
I think the article could be a very good article . . .but it needs to go back to the editing board.
Quite sad; I've see another lds forum that back in the day was a pretty good forum-which has now become overrun with doubters and non-believers.  It's not an openly hostile anti-mormon website-but it sure isn't a haven for believers.  What type of person are you attracting and trying to attract with these types of articles? What are people going to think about themoregoodfoundation and lds.net when they read a headline like that?  
I have learned in life that one of the most important things in life is perception and messaging.  The fact that he gets to a good place at the end doesn't matter one whit; what is the overridding message?  It's stated in the title-regardless of what else he states in his article it is clear that not only does was he disappointed but that he hates his blessing.  That's a really strong word to use and belies his true message-regardless of where he gets to at the end.
So yes, I do think it is undermining the Church's mission by publishing articles like that.
I think it is important to publicly say this stuff b/c the article links to this discussion.  At least if someone from the internet saw the article and investigated it a little more they might see that a lot of LDS member severely disagree with the message.
 

Well let's see considering this is the same author that wrote the following articles:
https://mormonhub.com/blog/buzz/congrats-trib-pulitzer-prize/ (no need to comment on this trash as the Trib is pretty anti.) and
https://mormonhub.com/blog/life/celebrating-earth-day/
Celebrating Earth Day like a Mormon?  For real?  Do you even know the history behind earth day?
http://www.briansussman.com/environment/earth-days-real-history/
http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/do-you-know-why-earth-day-is-april-22/
In other words, Earth Day was sponsored and promoted by Communists to celebrate Vladimir Lenin's 100th birthday.  It was promoted by a man who had just written "The Population Bomb"-in 1970 and likened the Human Race to a cancer that was getting out of control and how we should control the Earth's population.  Nothing but evil in those opinions.
Is this guy just a useful idiot for the left or does he really believe these things? 
I think your authors need to do some more research before they start writing moronic articles and MormonHub should do a better job screening who writes for them.

Mod note:
If guests have issues with some aspects of Joseph Smith's life and want to know how Mormons reconcile themselves to those issues--that's a fair question, and they are welcome to bring it up.
However, they are not welcome to merely trot out those issues as purportedly conclusive rebuttals of wholly unrelated points (i.e. "Mormonism' claims to priesthood are false because Joseph Smith married a divorced woman").  That's just mudslinging; and we won't put up with it.
Further posts of that tenor will be subject to moderator action in accordance with this site's rules of conduct.

You know, that's a reasonable take, and certainly more charitable than mine.

It's also a lie, Bini. The whole thing was a sham and a misrepresentation. Before continuing in your breathless outrage against the horrible and oppressive Church from which you have finally freed yourself, you might want to read the thread. If that's asking too much, reading this post and this post is probably enough.

I understand.  I agree with zil, there is a better way to approach it.
There have been some very good articles on mormonhub, like:
https://mormonhub.com/blog/faith/learning-surrender-gods-will/
but contrast the above to this article.  The approach, the overall messaging, completely different articles, but in many ways related.  Ultimately, a PB is about learning to surrender to what God would have us do in this life-even if it is just to live a plain ol' boring life, go on a mission, raise a family, or even if he doesn't give us a whole lot of instructions.  Some PBs might contain a whole slew of things, some might not, but ultimately it is about learning to surrender ourselves to what God wants us to do in our lives.
And my guess is that if one does have an awe-inspiring PB, when you are young it might seem cool and awesome but the older you get the more weight and responsibility you might feel.  If it said, "you will one be called as a prophet" a young kid will say oh that's awesome!! and then as he matures it might be, "wow, that is heavy-how can I possibly live up to that" and then it might even crush him. I trust in what the Lord tells each one of use through the PB-if it is "plain" for some reason it is that way; but I don't think being "plain" is bad.  We learn (if we stay worthy in this life) that we are all if we live worthily Kings, Priests, Queens, Priestesses, etc.  
What could be more awesome than that!!  And when we boil it all down, what could be better in life than living a simple Christ centered life, focused on raising a righteous family? Everything and anything else we do in life should always be appendages to raising a righteous family.
 

This is the problem right here.
Before I go on my soliloquy, let me just explain things to Godless.  The word Feminism has been hijacked.  So cue in that Princess Bride meme... You keep using that word.. it doesn't mean what you think it means.
Feminism in most of the Western World came in 3 waves:  1.)  Suffrage and legal liberties, 2.) Reproductive Rights and Equal Pay, 3.) Patriarchy.
What you are talking about Godless, has been fought mostly in the 1st Wave and some in the 2nd Wave of Feminism.  The advent of birth control in the 60's and the legalization of abortion in the 70's started the swing of the Feminist movement pendulum beyond the equality mark.
Today, when you hear the word Feminism anywhere in the Western World, you are talking about the 3rd wave - Patriarchy.  This is where Women - who have already pinnacled in their fight for equality, kept the pendulum swinging farther instead of maintaining the equilibrium and spreading their achievements to the rest of the Planet.  In this 3rd wave of feminism, you have women focusing on female victimhood in gender-neutral issues while completely ignoring, and even SUPPRESSING, the cries for legal liberties of women in the East (this was achieved in the west in the 1st wave!!!) because it conflicts with the the 3rd wave feminists' political posturing.
Godless, this is NOT RADICAL FEMINISM.  This IS THE FEMINIST MOVEMENT.  This is what that Woman's March was all about.  You can pretend that... oh, all these pro-life women, religious women, stay-at-home women, regular working women marched for Feminism.  They were all fooled.  Ask yourself... what was the purpose of the Womens' March?  What is their message?  Do you even know?
So, let's see what the Feminists are fighting for:
Equal Pay - That men are institutionally paid more than women for the same work in the USA is a myth.  As a matter of fact, it is ILLEGAL.  That there are more women wanting to be a nurse instead of a doctor with the higher pay grade while there are more men wanting to be a doctor than to be a nurse is a FACT.  That women take more unpaid leave than men is a FACT.  That women work less hours than men is a FACT.  AND THIS IS GOOD.  As @yjacket has pointed out.  Women are instinctively wired (call it the light of Christ if you like) to put their families above their ambition and that's a good thing!
Rape Culture - Men are rapists is a myth.  I don't need to go farther than that.  It is an insult to my husband and my sons to even claim this stupidity.
Pro-Choice - Abortion is legal.  That battle has been won and swung past equilibrium.  Now they're trying to stop anyone from swinging the pendulum to the center by stopping any reasonable opposition to the status quo... such as late-term abortions, abortions as birth-control, a father's say on abortion, Planned Parenthood, etc.
And any other perceived slight that is inflicted by the Patriarchy... like women having to pay for tampons...
On the other hand, these women - because they are supported by the political left who, for some reason, decided they can't say anything bad about Muslims - encourage non-Muslim celebrities to go to the Middle East and wear hijabs completely ignorant (or maybe they know it, they just don't care) that the women of the Middle East (Muslims and non-Muslims alike) have taken the hijab as their symbol of women's oppression and are trying very hard to get rid of it along with all the legal claptrap that binds women to oppressive living!
So, to say that this kind of feminist movement is EVEN RELATED AT ALL to the 1st Wave of Feminists that got us women our legal liberties is a laugh out loud funny kind of sad.  This kind of feminism needs to BE SQUASHED LIKE A SOUL-SUCKING MOSQUITO.  And you know what, when we do point out why they need to get squashed, we have people like Godless saying... but but but... suffrage!
Anyway, there's good news for us sane women... the number of women in the US who identify as a Feminist is only 18%.  In the UK, only 7%.  In Australia, only 10%... Although, upwards of 85% in all those countries are committed to Gender Equality.  And yes, they don't mean Equal = The Same.  Because, duh, uterus.

Again . . .what kind of drivel is this?  You guys are really putting out crap articles.
Snowflake generation . . .everyone must be the most awesome, most stupendous person ever . .. everyone will bow at your feet b/c your so awesome.  Oh, you mean I'm actually just a regular guy trying to make it in this world and that the most important things I can do are to raise a righteous family . .. boring!! Life sucks, I hate everything b/c I'm not God's gift to the world!!! 
And in order to pronounce my frustration at how I'm not God's gift to the world I'll write an article and I'll title it "I HATE my Patriarchal Blessing".  Well maybe that is your problem there-your attitude.  Maybe God decided not to give you more insight b/c of your attitude . . . . Why does everything have to be so drama filled these days?
Please, spare me the drivel. 

Again . . .what kind of drivel is this?  You guys are really putting out crap articles.
Snowflake generation . . .everyone must be the most awesome, most stupendous person ever . .. everyone will bow at your feet b/c your so awesome.  Oh, you mean I'm actually just a regular guy trying to make it in this world and that the most important things I can do are to raise a righteous family . .. boring!! Life sucks, I hate everything b/c I'm not God's gift to the world!!! 
And in order to pronounce my frustration at how I'm not God's gift to the world I'll write an article and I'll title it "I HATE my Patriarchal Blessing".  Well maybe that is your problem there-your attitude.  Maybe God decided not to give you more insight b/c of your attitude . . . . Why does everything have to be so drama filled these days?
Please, spare me the drivel. 

And thus the destruction of society  . . . I want my daughters growing up to believe that the most important job they can and will ever do is raising a righteous generation. Nothing, they do in life will ever come close to that monumental, sacred task. I want my son to grow up believing the most important job he can ever have is to lead his family in righteousness towards God.  That no job he will ever do will make up for a lack of him being a proper leader, mentor, provider in his family.
The above is (and I don't mean offense MG) is the modern secular humanistic view of the world-that it is important to do something "great", that being whatever you want is good.
Except that every single one of us will die at some point-life is very, very short and very transitory.  God cares not if we are "great men/women" in the eyes of the world. God cares whether we have done our best to learn to become like Him and whether we have learned the right lessons on this Earth.  And those lessons do not include "being whatever you want to be" but "how do I emulate my Savior more and then how do I teach that to others?".
I work to provide for my family-not for the praise and gain of the world.  It is a difference of world-view.  One is very secular and humanistic; the other is a focus on the things of God.

What a lie; more rationalization of the notion that "do whatever you want, it's okay".  Stay-at-home mom is not the same goodness of a decision as a working mother.  No ifs ands or buts the ideal and the way God designed families is for the husband to provide and for the wife to nurture. To declare otherwise or even make them equivalent is a lie.  I understand that some women might have to work due to life circumstances and that's okay-but the ideal and what we should strive for should not be that "it's okay whichever way you choose."
The article dogs on men and says they need to step up, yet where is the counter that feminism needs to step up and stop this lie that a woman can do whatever she wants with her body b/c it "empowers" her? Belittling to men that they can't control their passions?? Well you know what there are two sides to every coin. If you didn't have women who sold their bodies to cameras and magazines and had more self-respect . . .
Oh but yeah that's right, men are expected to control their passions when they see beautiful half-naked or naked women at every step of the way-go to the movies, watch news, shoot just watch ABC and they have simulated sex as the camera fades away.  And don't give me the beach story as most women at the beach in bikinis are not exactly paragons of beauty. And instead of saying women should respect their bodies, men are supposed to control their emotions.
Here is a brilliant idea, why don't we admit we live in a decadent society and good men and women of God are just trying to do their best to live their live's morally rather than beat up on one sex or the other.

While I don't believe finances is a reason for divorce; the fact of the matter is that financial decisions and arguments over finances is the #1 reason for divorce.
Unfortunately, this is a problem that should have been solved long, long ago with your wife and because it wasn't solved many moons ago it has caused a much, much bigger problem.
This is precisely why your children have problems-she has never let them be responsible for their own lives.  
This probably started when they were young and she wanted them to live a good life; not realizing that as a parent you can teach but you can't live their life for them-which is what she is trying to do.
This is also why (as much as people complain about rich inheritances) wealth does not pass three generations. The 1st generation worked hard, by the sweat of their brow and built something, the second generation has it a little bit easier but saw the hardwork of the parents and tries to do the same, by the time the 3rd generation roles around the kids are spoiled brats who can't do jack for themselves.  
The very wealthy families (who's wealth has passed down through generations) teach their kids very, very differently; kids who are slackers are cut off-everyone is expected to work hard, etc. 
I completely agree you need to get control of the situation-without causing a divorce.  The only way you are going to completely solve the problem is for you and her to get on the same page-for that, she needs to understand at a very deep emotional level the massive problems she is causing with your children's lives by providing them with financial funds (they will never be financially stable on their own, their own self-worth will be less, etc.).  I don't know how that is going to happen at this stage . . . 
Baring a complete mindset change on her part, probably the best you can do is find some compromise you both can live with.  Giving your wife 200k/year for the needs of the family is a lot of money; that isn't needs that is 200k/year for wants.   If you are providing 200k/year to her but then complaining about the 100k/year she gives to the kids-you are doing it wrong man.
Think of it this way . . . if as an employer you give your employees 50k/year and then they take 20k and blow it on shopping do you get upset at them?  No, b/c it is their money to do with as they see fit. If you give her 200k/year then you can't complain with what she does with the money as long as the actual needs not wants of your family is paid for. A huge part of this life is learning how to give people responsibility over things and then letting them fail or do with it how they see fit.  You have given your wife responsibility over 200k/year and obviously she is being irresponsible with that money (in your opinion and in mine-but not in her opinion).  
So what do you do? I don't know-this should have been solved a long time ago, if you don't nip things in the bud they can get real, real bad.
I would start of with obviously she doesn't need 200k/year so dial that back-what is appropriate, I have no idea, but obviously 100k/year isn't since she blows that on the kids.  No if you go from 200k to 100k/year that is probably going to cause some major problems.  Do you scale it back gradually or rip the bandaid off (which might be a  turniquet that is keeping blood from going everywhere).
And finally, is a divorce really going to solve this problem?  My guess is that a lot of things are tied together in your names and since you are fairly well off she will most likely get a significant portion of your income-which may amount to 200k/year??? In that case, she continues to do the same-except you've now lost your wife.
My condolences and good luck!

I'm a hard-nose, but . . . I don't think financially illiterate spouses have the right to jeopardize the retirements of the financially literate spouses.  Knowing you're condemned to spend the next 20-30 years of your life with nothing more than Social Security is a hard thing; especially when you spent forty or fifty years working your tail off to avoid that exact scenario.  If after all her spending you can't get by on what's left; then that does strike me as the sort of forfeiture of one's dignity that some GA's have referred to as perhaps justifying divorce.  I mean, how is it that Mom can blow $100k on fully adult kids; and Dad doesn't even get a new boat/truck/library/fishing pole/ whatever your priorities are?  And of course, if you had spent $100k at the racetrack in the past 3 years, most of us would have no qualms about advising your wife to do whatever it took to safeguard her financial future.
Obviously, there are nuances here worth considering (were you a sole breadwinner?  Just how much money do you get to blow?  Is this spending  sustainable; or are you eating into principal?  What is the long-term financial outlook?). Speaking generally:  So long as you still have a sustainable standard of living, I wouldn't divorce her; but given her refusal to govern herself I think you're well within your rights to isolate some core amount in such a way that she can't fritter it away.  And if she doesn't like it--
--well, it's her move.  The questions she is going to have to ask herself are a) whether you're really such a terrible guy; and b) whether, if she divorces you, she'll get enough alimony to be able to give her little darlings as much as she gives them now.