JoCa

Truth, I'd be really leery of any counselor that suggests divorce without any evidence of Adultery, Abuse or mental issues.
Fact of the matter it takes three people to make a marriage work, you, your spouse and God. Without any one of those the marriage will be in for some hard times.  If your spouse doesn't want to make it work, there is nothing you can really do about it-except love her and make your marriage priority #1 (above everything except God).
Yes if a marriage is not functioning properly, the children will notice it and it will affect them.  The best thing for young children is to see their mother and father in a secure relationship that pays more attention to the marriage than to them.  But if you are worrying more about how your marriage is affecting your children rather than the marriage itself, it won't work.
And that is the real question, rather than worry about whether she loves you, find out where her marriage ranks on her priority list.  If either one of you does not have your marriage at priority #1 (below God) problems will occur.  Once you find that out, then the question to ask is why is it not @ #1, and how can we get it to be #1.  Do that and the rest will take care of itself.
I'm not sure what is going on w/ Dillon, but ultimately it is the thing that causes the breakdown of every marriage-one person (or both) in the marriage is not willing to make the marriage #1 . . .so it fails.
Some people say, marriage is a piece of cake or easy . . . well for the rest of us mortals, marriage is the hardest thing we will ever do in this life, but also the most rewarding.

OP,  
Get a book called Fireproof.  Read it and apply it.  In the absence of one of the 3 A's (Adultery, Addiction, Abuse) you cannot leave.  You have to think about your children.  You have at least until the last one is 18/out of the house.  
Your wife can learn to love you, and you can love her.  Find a real counselor that doesn't suggest divorce.  Talk to your bishop, he can help.  If your wife doesn't want to go to counseling, then you should go alone.  

Too funny.

By the way, Kate Kelley (remember her?) recently wrote a Facebook post lambasting the whole event as being too "patriarchal".

Surely you mean a student.  Why would a parent ever read the assignment their child has?  I already passed 3rd grade a long time ago-it's not my responsibility to read the teachers assignments it's my kids responsibility.

Here are my thoughts on reading logs.  I prefer the second, but to each his own...

I appreciate the ask and (I hope) I didn't mean to insult with my comment-just a recognition that it's easier not to do homework.
Yes, you can teach time management in other ways.  But it is one tools that reinforces time management and responsibility-if it's done right!!!
Homework done poorly (kid comes home, parents nag about homework, sit at the dinner table, tell kid to open up books, sits with them and helps them with every question, ensures they get a good grade.  If the child turns in sloppy or unfinished homework the next day, the teacher says "well try again harder next time" or "that's okay". This teaches nothing and in fact is detrimental-i.e. it teaches the child "I as I child do not have to be responsible for myself b/c either someone is going to make me do it or they will let it slide to where it doesn't matter"
Homework done right (kid comes home and has a set time to turn in homework-i.e. you can't work on it past 7pm), parents don't say a word about child's homework. Kid either does it or doesn't do it.  Next day the child either turns it in or doesn't turn it in.  If it's turned in sloppy or not finished child gets a bad grade.  If a period of time goes by where the child consistently turns in sloppy or unfinished work (i.e. at parent teacher conference or quarter grades), parents drop the hammer, restrict privileges, etc.  This teaches responsibility and time management as well as consequences for bad behavior.  That sometimes we can "get away" with bad behavior immediately but the "chickens always come home to roost". This teaches the child that he can choose to do his homework right away or he can procrastinate, if he procrastinates long enough bad things happen (as in time runs out). Longer term projects (i.e. week long homework) reinforces this even more.

It is the parents' responsibility to teach the "three Rs" of school, as well. Public schools are, or should be, an assistant to the parents' educational efforts. I realize that most people don't view it that way, but to be blunt, most people are wrong.
(No offense intended to you, JoCa.)

Vort, bingo, man, bingo.
I'll amend that to de facto child care leftist political indoctrination centers.

My observation is that most school time is wasted time, as far as learning school subjects goes. I also observe that public schools have become de facto child care facilities. We're not talking about them acting in loco parentis in the traditional sense, we're talking about them performing child care activities for the parents.
The further things go down this path, the better homeschooling looks to me.

But what exactly is "busywork"?  Quite frankly, most kids (in the younger grades) have no clue what "busywork" means or even what it is.  My kids dust the baseboards in the house when they are little.  Is that "busywork"?  It's a nice to have, but does it need to be done, no-I've never dusted the baseboards myself.  So why assign it? B/c it gives the child a responsibility.
Busywork is write this same exact sentence 50 times.  I completely agree playtime is one of the best things a child can do, is just go play!  But they still need to learn how to be responsible and homework teaches them that.  I'm not a fan of lots of homework having 2+ hours of homework a night when they go to school for 7 hours is not cool.  But for lower grades, what is the big deal with 15-30 min. of homework each night? 
IMO, it's b/c adults are too lazy and don't want the hassle and stress of telling kids to hand in their assignments and then grading their assignments. Then when they give a student a 0 some idiot parent will complain about "how dare you give my little johnny a 0, he worked so hard on this assignment".  It's much easier to just say homework is "busywork".  Homework is first and foremost about teaching responsibility and if they don't learn it when they are young . . .well good luck teaching it when they are older!
As a society we need to be tougher on kids, not nasty or brutish, but expect and demand more out of them and then hold them accountable when they don't do what they should do. Otherwise . . .well otherwise you get the current generation of (casting with a broad brush) wimps and snowflakes.

I'm not gonna say much about how I know, except a hearty AMEN and TRUTH.
I think the way of the world has deceived many into not seeing and/or believing what is right in front of our faces and/or a lack of faith in casting them out.

Exactly!  This was taught by Joseph Smith.  Satan and his minions cannot compel anyone to commit sin; all is voluntary.  A person has to sin for an invited possession in the first place.  I say invited because there are two types of possession: invited and uninvited.  Invited happens through committing sin egregious enough to allow evil spirits to enter.  Uninvited is as Elder Bruce R. McConkie said, through reasons of depression and physical weakness.  In an invited possession, the person is still responsible for any sins he commits because he is still capable of resisting the thoughts, feelings, desires, and influence of the possessing spirit(s).  If he gives in to the thoughts etc., he makes them his own.
Read both papers and you'll find out all sorts of things about possession.

This is the problem with most possessions: you simply do not know you're possessed.  Another big problem is that unclean spirits are very subtle in transferring their thoughts, feelings, emotions, and desires into you.  Since those desires, etc., come from within, you think they are your own.  If you dwell on them, they do become your own.  In the paper, it gives a description as to how possession works.  The body is a car and the spirit the driver with a steering wheel.  When not possessed, the driver controls the direction of the car, but when you have extra passengers, each of them also has a steering wheel that is connected to the driver's steering wheel.  You are constantly fighting which direction you want to go and eventually, you give in to the whims of the passengers.  Another problem is that with very few exceptions, most LDS believe in the wisdom of the world which teaches that possession simply does not occur and is a myth.  NOT!  Those impure thoughts come from the evil spirits.  They are not your thoughts unless you dwell on them and make them your own.
I recommend that you give your bishop both papers to read.  Tell him to drop me a line if he has questions.

It's nice to know that paper is getting around.  There is a sequel to that paper that was just released, Possession by Devils and Unclean Spirits.  I've attached it for you or anyone else to read.  There is an email address included in both papers.  If you want help with your problem, drop me an email.
As for bishops, well, quite simply they lack correct knowledge on the subject of evil spirits and possession.  The vast majority believe what the world teaches about possession and don't have a clue as to what the Church actually has taught on the subject.  I have been told by many other men fighting this addiction that the standard response to a request to cast out unclean spirits is, "Huh?"  About three weeks ago, I got a call from a brother in Oregon with this problem who went to his bishop for a blessing.  He told his bishop that he was possessed and asked him to cast out the evil spirits.  The bishop said, "Brother ----, I assure you, you aren't possessed."  Sadly, I've heard this many times from many people.  If you decide to try and talk to other people about this, be prepared for a lot of opposition. 
Possession By Devils and Unclean Spirits.pdf

I'm in favor of both reading logs and homework; it doesn't need to be much-i.e. for younger grades half hours worth of work or so.  But IMO the most important part of homework and reading logs isn't what they learn directly from the piece of paper or from the book they read.
The most important thing they learn from it is responsibility, as in I have an assignment and it is due on x day.  In order to turn it in properly I need to work on it at this time.  It teaches self-reliance, independence and an understanding of the consequences of procrastination (you get a bad grade).  Those things are in really short supply in today's world and children need to learn more of it.
If I did homework, I would make the above clear to parents, i.e. under no circumstances should a parent do the homework for the child.  If I suspected a parent "helped" with a homework assignment, the student would get a 0.  The objective of homework isn't to reinforce that 2+2=4; it's to teach the kids so that later in life when they have a job they can do their homework assignments at work or at home with minimal problems.

I'm in favor of both reading logs and homework; it doesn't need to be much-i.e. for younger grades half hours worth of work or so.  But IMO the most important part of homework and reading logs isn't what they learn directly from the piece of paper or from the book they read.
The most important thing they learn from it is responsibility, as in I have an assignment and it is due on x day.  In order to turn it in properly I need to work on it at this time.  It teaches self-reliance, independence and an understanding of the consequences of procrastination (you get a bad grade).  Those things are in really short supply in today's world and children need to learn more of it.
If I did homework, I would make the above clear to parents, i.e. under no circumstances should a parent do the homework for the child.  If I suspected a parent "helped" with a homework assignment, the student would get a 0.  The objective of homework isn't to reinforce that 2+2=4; it's to teach the kids so that later in life when they have a job they can do their homework assignments at work or at home with minimal problems.

I really dislike the  phrasing "being homosexual is not a sin, acting on it is" and "homosexual child".  Just like Elder Bednar said, STTE we should not define ourselves by our sexuality, i.e. saying "homosexual child" IMO is really disingenuous.  Simply by doing that we are already defining a child by their feelings.  If I have anger problems, do I label myself as a "anger adult", I might have anger issues or I might have a alcohol issues but it doesn't define me.  
The homosexual revolution isn't about an individual who has feelings of attraction for the same sex, it is about an identity as a "homosexual". Honestly, (I might ruffle feathers) I would say identifying as a homosexual is a sin, whereas identifying as someone who has struggles with attractions to the same sex is not.  There is a very powerful difference between the two.
The homosexual movement, when they say God love you as you are, what they really mean is you are a homosexual, God loves you as a homosexual and therefor there is no need to change part of who you are. 
The most insidious part of the homosexual movement is that is actually denies the power of change, real change and the power of the Atonement.  The movement says, God loves you as you are and changing who you are is impossible.  The unallowable speech with the homosexual movement, the one thing that they will deny to the nth degree is that over time one can change who they are, they can change the very core being. It is an ideology that is 100% antithecal to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
I know thoughts and feelings can change.  It has happened to me personally.  I have had struggles over certain thoughts and over certain feelings.  Through the power of Christ, my very being has changed and is continually changing.  As I become more of who God wants me to become, I can change my very emotions.  And that is what we are really talking about SSA is all about emotions and feelings. The very sad thing about the homosexual movement as I see it within the Church is that we end up denying the very power that we are supposed to have such a testimony of . . .the Power of Christ to change who we are to make us a new man or a new woman.
So no having SSA isn't a sin; however there is a bit of hypocrisy that unfortunately we are not willing to face. If Christ expects me as a married man to not "look on a woman to lust after her" b/c I have already committed adultery in my heart, then surely Christ expects those who have SSA to not "look on the same flesh to lust after" so as to not commit sin in his heart.
And the beautiful thing is that overtime as I grow as a married man I can become more like Christ, I can change my heart to follow his instructions more fully. It has happened in my life.  If it has happened in my life, through the Atonement of Christ, why can it not happen in someone else's life who has SSA. Do I have such little faith as to deny the Power of Christ to make that change in their hearts, in their minds, in their feelings.  No I will not deny that power. For God truly can work miracles.
Quite honestly, it is a lack of faith and an unwillingness to change.  It is more comfortable, it is easier to say whelp "God just loves me as I am", rather than put for the hard effort that it takes to change oneself.  The haters say that "praying the Gay away" in a sarcastic manner. . .quite frankly they have no clue what they are talking about-they deny the power of prayer, the power of God, the power of the Atonement.
We read in the Scriptures:
19 And if there were miracles wrought then, why has God ceased to be a God of miracles and yet be an unchangeable Being? And behold, I say unto you he changeth not; if so he would cease to be God; and he ceaseth not to be God, and is a God of miracles.20 And the reason why he ceaseth to do miracles among the children of men is because that they dwindle in unbelief, and depart from the right way, and know not the God in whom they should trust.
Sometimes I wonder if the easiness of modern life and general prosperity has weakened our faith. When Moses came down from the Mount he had the higher law and saw the people dancing and worshiping an idol cow; he broke the tables and gave the lessor law.  Is our idol cow the philosophies of men as told to us by modern say philosophers??
Instead of looking towards homosexuality for higher suicide rates, maybe there are other causes:
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/05/smartphones-ruining-mental-health-teens.html
And I bet an already confused teenager that suffers with (of course the homosexual crowd would say saying suffers with is hateful) SSA is probably a lot more vulnerable . . .
 
 

Except again, the methodology they want to use to prevent youth suicide is out of line with Church teaching.  It's insidious. The founder of the concert explicitly says the LDS church is bigoted and telling youth that homosexual behavior is sinful is "hateful"-they want to prevent youth suicide by telling kids "just be who you are, it's okay to engage in homosexual behavior". 
That individuals don't see the readjustment and changing of definition of words is amazing and demonstrates how insidious Lucifer really is.  Up until roughly the 1950s, gay meant happy, joyous. The song "We'll all feel gay when Johnny comes Marching Home" was a song sung. But the homosexual agenda usurped the word and then owned the word.  Now gay means exclusively homosexual. 
The definition of "Family values" and love are changing too.

A couple of points.  Why does a world-wide Church even need to address this?  The LDS Church puts out a PR statement on an event that will have what maybe at the very most 50,000 people attend.  Commenting on a Rock Concert no less (I love rock, but again why comment?).  This event is an extremely local event-I bet nobody except those who either live in the direct area or those who are plugged into the homosexual agenda were even aware of this event.
The Church has 15+ million members with over half residing in foreign lands that have absolutely nothing to do with the event.  Again part of wisdom in life and organizationally is understanding some things just don't need to be addressed.  When you address ever little whim and issues you look like you are either becoming more and more shifting with the times or like you don't know what you are doing and are reacting to ever jot and tittle. Just because you have lots of people inquiring doesn't mean you are required to give an answer.
And on the surface the event's "aim" appears noble.  "Prevent teen suicides and keep families together".  Of course, who wouldn't be for those things.  Except their idea of how to prevent suicides and keep families together is antithecal to the LDS church methodology. LDS Church is love them as children of God but right is right, wrong is wrong-do not commit sin.  Their way (as stated by their founder) is that this teaching leads to suicide and teaching children that homosexual behavior is a sin is hateful.
LDS church's view on family is that it should be man and women.  Their view is homosexuals should be able to raise children.
How can you have dialog on that?
And quite frankly as human beings very, very few of us are able to understand the subtle nuances.  That's why you have a PR department, they are supposed to understand that people don't get subtle differences and word things in a clear concise manner.
PR says "we share common values like the pricelessness of youth and the value of families".  Except our definition of what pricelessness of youth means (i.e. teaching them the straight and narrow way) and our definition of value of families (man and woman sealed together) are the complete opposite than theirs.
PR this past week from the Church was a major, major fail. Had the PR department acknowledged in their statement a reaffirmation of LDS values then that would probably have been much better. The PR department can receive such backlash that they clarify their statement against "white supremacy" but they will probably let this stand.
The definition of how they use words is different then ours.  Our love is their hate and their love is our sin. 
God heads this Church; but anyone who says "all is well in Zion" has got their head stuck in the mud.

"God loves you as you are" carries the implication (to my ears, at least) that God is okay with you being exactly as you are, with no changes. This is clearly false for any of us; specifically, it is false for practicing homosexuals. So while the words are true per se, they convey a false meaning. This is the root of the problem some of us have.
I envision the following as a not-unlikely progression:
Pro-homosexuality group: We want to have a rally to deter gay teens from suicide!
LDS Church: We approve of that stated goal.
[Rally takes place, and unsurprisingly is a statement of pride in homosexual activity and an encouragement for suicidal "gay" teens to embrace "their" homosexuality]
LDS Church: Embracing a sinful practice isn't what we were supporting.
Pro-homosexuality group: How evil you are! Gay teens embracing who they Really Are is the only way to stop their suicides! And who they Really Are is...GAY!!! HOORAY!!
But as others have pointed out, it's not our decision. I support our leaders, even as I fully expect a betrayal similar to the above to take place.

They have their own action. It's called the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which gospel is the gospel of faith, repentance and obedience.

I fall very much in line with 
if this viewpoint, as someone who enjoys European culture and enjoys my heritage of this country, where my ancestors came from, etc. and makes me part of  "white supremacy" or racist or under condemnation from the Church that I love so much. Whelp as David Farragut said "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead".  Maybe I just ain't fit for whatever this new modern age is.
 

That's fair; but in the long run, the highest form of compassion we can show to our gay brothers and sisters is to encourage them (by Christlike means) to not forfeit their birthright by flouting the law of chastity.  
Care needs to be (and, I trust, *is*) taken to ensure that the Church's efforts to alleviate suffering don't redound to the advantage of those who, under Satanic influence, are trying to undermine that effort.

I find this political cartoon applicable to the topic of discussion, and one that establishes an important truth: