omegaseamaster75

You haven't mentioned kids yet, so I will assume that you have none. If you decide to stay with him don't have any kids at least not until he has proven himself to be a grown up. 
Sadly you married a man child this is far too common.  To those who say that it's ok for grown men to play with child like things here is the perfect argument against it.
My 2 cents See a MFT and give him a deadline to shape up and be a man. When he misses his deadline see an attorney. 

You are right. I believe Brigham Young was/is a prophet called and directed by God. I also believe he understood the reason for the ban. 
On the topic of revelation it would be good to know what qualifies as a revelation to the prophet for the church. Is it a vision or hearing the voice of The Lord or is it a spiritual prompting or merely feeling good about something? 
In the days of Joseph Smith when he had a question he would ask then receive a revelation which would then be recorded to become the Doctrine and Covenants. However not all of his revelations were published, such as those dealing with plural marriage, and I suspect not all of his questions were answered by revelation. 
I feel that The Lord does not micro manage His Church. I feel He calls wise men whom He allows to direct His church, giving direction and guidance through spiritual promptings or whatever when necessary.
Joseph Smith once said that he taught the members correct principles and then let them govern themselves. I suspect The Lord acts in a similar manner. 

So out of one side of your mouths you say that whatever the prophet says is doctrinal, but out of the other side of your mouths all the stuff that happened in the past doesn't count and wasn't doctrinal. ?????   Pick a side guys.
For the record I think the Ban on the Priesthood was a matter of policy established by Brigham Young later rescinded via "revelation" because it was a bad policy.  The tough part is explaining away 100 plus years of bad policy. Which I suppose has been done by writing and essay and saying don't question it.

So out of one side of your mouths you say that whatever the prophet says is doctrinal, but out of the other side of your mouths all the stuff that happened in the past doesn't count and wasn't doctrinal. ?????   Pick a side guys.
For the record I think the Ban on the Priesthood was a matter of policy established by Brigham Young later rescinded via "revelation" because it was a bad policy.  The tough part is explaining away 100 plus years of bad policy. Which I suppose has been done by writing and essay and saying don't question it.

If you want to know if the doctrinal reason for the ban on the priesthood it only takes a few seconds of searching to find countless quotes from prophets and apostles on the doctrinal reasons for the ban. The reasons for the band were preach from the pulpit for 130 years. However none of that matters anymore because in the words of Bruce R. McConkie “There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.”

I don't agree. The scriptures do not say the entire planet was covered with water. The scriptures don't recognize planetary ideas or that the earth is spherical. That is a modern idea grafted into ancient prose, like the idea that Peleg's "division of the earth" refers to continental drift. It's the imposition of modern attitudes onto ancient writing.

Couldn't tell you. Wasn't there. There's simply no observable evidence either for or against the hypothesis.
But I'm not afraid to recognize that the story of such an event was written down sometime between 40 and 80 years after Christ's death by an unidentified, biased author who likely never met Jesus. So I'm willing to consider that it may have been literal, story telling device, or legend.
Whatever way you read it, you completely ignored the content of my post, which I find peculiar.

I'll just link to this. 
 
I find the idea of a literal world wide flood to be as naive as the idea that a week has seven days because of Genesis.

The writers of the Old Testament used “wash” to refer to “immersion” (the tevilah; for example, Exodus 40:12). As we know, analog rituals can be performed symbolically and carry the same legitimacy as though they took place in actuality. So the earth may have been symbolically baptized through a local flood, taking nothing away from our doctrine. The symbolic ordinance of a local flood yields the same effect as though an actual, global immersion took place; the ordinance renders the effect as though the event took place literally. There are many instances in Church practice where this pattern continues today.

No way. 
Also, I reject the notion that geological events constitute doctrine.
Interesting story with important principles...absolutely. 
Literal events...there isn't sufficient evidence to suggest it would even be possible, let alone that it actually happened.

I am not sure that the "church" has a responsibility to ensure that "good" talks are given on Sunday. I see it as a problem at a local level.  However a quick google search turned this up. SO I guess the "church" has addressed it on some level.
https://www.lds.org/church/news/professor-teaches-steps-for-giving-better-sacrament-meeting-talks?lang=eng&_r=1

I am not sure that the "church" has a responsibility to ensure that "good" talks are given on Sunday. I see it as a problem at a local level.  However a quick google search turned this up. SO I guess the "church" has addressed it on some level.
https://www.lds.org/church/news/professor-teaches-steps-for-giving-better-sacrament-meeting-talks?lang=eng&_r=1

I am not sure that the "church" has a responsibility to ensure that "good" talks are given on Sunday. I see it as a problem at a local level.  However a quick google search turned this up. SO I guess the "church" has addressed it on some level.
https://www.lds.org/church/news/professor-teaches-steps-for-giving-better-sacrament-meeting-talks?lang=eng&_r=1

With the dog?  That's the big question.  From the looks of things, that's not an option.  But if you know for a fact not just that he has been to the temple, but that he has been able to take the dog in, then we have precedent at one temple at least.
Or you could have the faith that God would protect you for the duration of your visit so that you could enter the temple without the dog/animal.
I wouldn't find fault with such an individual regardless of the decision they make.  They know the risks, their history, their prayers, etc.  They are in the best position to decide.

Street smart.
 
Lesson one. Don't mess with other people's wives.

YES!

@MormonGator has it nailed down, are you close friends with her husband? was this a long standing friendship that preceded their marriage? Are you respecting his wishes? 

whaaaaaaa, it's not fair.....you sound like my 3 year old

whaaaaaaa, it's not fair.....you sound like my 3 year old

I'll jump in, it's this. You need to grow up a little bit and not text married women. 
Single men can't be friends with married women. You can't text them or go out to lunch or hang at the beach, when you do no matter how innocent it may be this crap happens.  People get the wrong idea, a statement or look or gesture gets misinterpreted and you get your temple recommend taken away.

@MormonGator has it nailed down, are you close friends with her husband? was this a long standing friendship that preceded their marriage? Are you respecting his wishes? 

This.
See a professional, your bishop can help you wade through the process of repentance but your root problem needs to be addressed. You are engaging in dangerous and potentially life threatening behaviors.

Eh, it's just about allocation of your disposable income. The same guy who writes with a Bic might drive a Mercedes, while I'll drive a VW.
The guy who spends $6k on a snowmobile or jet ski might never buy a nice watch.....

I own several and they are superior writing instruments IMHO

@JayKi,
From the time I returned from my mission to Italy, I had an Italian pen pal. She actually was sort of "in love" with me, but after I made it clear that we weren't going to go in that direction, we had a very nice, years-long letter-writing relationship. (This was in the years before email.) Though I didn't want romance with her, I really cared about this young woman.
When I married my wife, she objected to my Italian female pen pal. Like you, I didn't understand this attitude. Like you, I thought I should be able to be friends with whomever I wanted, and it was really not any of her business. I mentioned this to my mother one day in passing, and she quickly set me straight. I decided that if my wife and mother agreed about that thing, it was probably myself that was not seeing things right. So I wished my pen pal well and stopped writing her.
That's the kind of thing we do to safeguard marriage. The marital state is a sacred thing, and we should sanctify it.
Honestly, friend, if this woman's husband doesn't want you seeing her, You Should Not Be Seeing Her. Her marriage to her husband is vastly more important than your friendship with her.
Look, you're a smart guy. Be smart enough to realize that when two dozen people tell you the same thing -- two dozen people who, by the way, probably wouldn't find anything else to agree on in a year of conversation -- that means that you are probably the one who's wrong.
Don't be prideful, friend. Be humble. Tell your friend you are happy to keep hanging out with her, as long as her husband is there, too. Maybe you can bring your girlfriend/fiancée with you and make it a double date. Just keep it on the up-and-up.