"No PM!" Wives' Ultimatums

[CecilW]

(The following is intended to become a FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) article, but I wanted to post it first as a thread to offer opportunity for critique and improvement.)

(Further note: 4/7/12: My suggestion stirred up quite a bit of controversy. While I stand by what was written, I also acknowledge that it might be a rather overwhelming response to present to a wife all at once. Please read the following thread carefully, use what you find helpful, and discard the rest. -- CecilW)

As I've been talking to my wife recently about PM, she said flat out a couple of days ago that if I am really intending to make this part of our lives at some stage, I should just know now that she'll consider it a 'deal-breaker' as far as our relationship is concerned. I have no intention of trying to force her into PM, but PM is very heavy on my heart.

I suppose I always figured she would probably have this reaction. I think many women probably would. Even so, I feel a little discouraged. Ach, well, this probably was going to be a somewhat bumpy road all along. Even if we do enter into PM one day, the bumps will still come; that's just life.

In your opinion, do you think I should encourage her to have a look at the BibFam website on her own to do some personal research into these things, or should I back off for a little while?

First off, my sympathy. You are not alone. My first wife did the same thing and, although I was not courting, she eventually did separate from and then divorce me, saying that she knew me to be a man of integrity who practiced what he believed and who would therefore one day practice PM. She didn't intend to be here when it occurred, it hurt too much. While I hurt with her, I do not believe on turning one's back on revealed truth. 2 years later, God dropped my current wife into my lap and said, "Love THIS one." (I DO!) Nonetheless, my first wife and I remain friends, and are edging closer to each other. So I have been there, and care.

As to my advice: I suggest that you make a very clear statement back. It should probably be written, and you should keep a copy in a journal so that you can refer back to it if something said proves to be misunderstood or requires further improvement.

The first thing it should do is repeat and re-affirm your lifelong love for and commitment to her, regardless of what she chooses to do. Your love in unbreakable, period. Your commitment is breakable ONLY by her actual marriage to another man. It should say that the foregoing is only possible in an otherwise lost and sinful human due to your commitment to God and absolute determination to follow His Word rather than any traditions, philosophies, theories, or rules of men.

Next, it should be pointed out that she has previously made the same commitment (if applicable), and that it forms the basis of your "equal yoking". If she now repudiates it, then the two of your are, unintentionally, unequally yoked. Regardless, YOUR commitment stands (in imitation of God's towards us,)

Next, I would say that after careful study, I have concluded that PM is both Godly and sometimes (but not always) mandated in scripture, but that the decision in a specific family and instance, yea or nay, is within the purview of the man, not the woman. It is between God and man, and his wife does not have the right to interpose herself with a veto or directive.

You should probably direct her attention to Genesis 3, where God told Adam that because he had listened to the voice of his wife in preference to His own, Sin entered and infected the whole human race. The consequences of doing so are serious! They affect not only the two of you but future generations as well!

It is at this point that I would suggest becoming involved with BiblicalFamilies.org, and also offer to sit down with her, Bibles in hand, and study the subject together. There are also some very good videos on YouTube put out by some of our members. Affirm that if proved wrong, you will retreat from the position. Rest assured, it won't happen on THIS topic! But it IS always the right attitude to maintain, and one which you would want her to adopt as well.

Next, I would assure her that you are not actively engaged in seeking and courting anyone at present, assuming that to be true, and intend (careful wording, which allows for God to change things) to give her time to learn and adjust, if she so chooses. But that you are NOT free to turn your back on light revealed, nor to abdicate your authority or responsibility within the family, and have no intention of doing either.

I would then explain that due to this changed understanding of right and wrong, I was modifying one clause of my wedding vows, openly and intentionally, not as an excuse for having cheated but as an open statement of changed requirement, much as if one had agreed to raise their children Roman Catholic but later converted to Seventh-day Adventism (about as far away as you can get in Christianity). I would also observe that in reviewing our wedding vows, I had noted a deficiency, and my modified version attempts to make up for it.

I would then repeat my wedding vows as verbatum as possible. However, I would substitute for the phrase "Keeping myself only to you", "Keeping myself open and available to you". If you think that phrase through, you will discover that it is a HUGE and very different commitment!

Finally, I would summarize by saying that we had both clearly stated our current positions. You had offered a pathway to unity via studying together. Her move.

And then I would be in no particular hurry to go a-courting. Rather, much in prayer for the Holy Spirit's free working in both of your lives, and for clear direction in yours. Concentrate on improving your own husbanding to mimic how God husbands us. Invite Him to change you as He sees fit. Read and PONDER 1 Corinthians 13 DAILY for a time.

Pure Opinion Inset: One area in which it may be important for many of us men to change (I struggle with this) is to become more of a LEADER in our existing marriage instead of merely a partner. This is especially true if our natural style of leadership is too laid back and non-directive. It MAY be that doing so is a prerequisite for successful introduction of PM. God certainly maintains the positional difference with us, no matter how intimate we become. It IS a difference that is vitally necessary for the smooth working of a PM family.

One BF member, the leader of perhaps the happiest PM family I know, told me that he has told his wives that while he often takes their advice, and enjoys doing so, he will sometimes give a seemingly perverse order which they will not like, without explanation. Nonetheless, obedience is and will be expected. Why? Because they must become accustomed to immediate obedience, whether his reasons are clear or not. Why? Because the day may well come when the whole family's live's may depend upon it.

Please note that he does NOT use the foregoing to selfishly and immaturely have his own way...

While this runs contrary to current Western marriage custom, I can't argue with either his reasoning or the fruit in his family.

Then let Patience have it's work in your life. God will become your All-In-All, and whatever course your future takes, you will be sure you are following Him. There is no better assurance!

 

[FollowingHim]

This is a very good topic to address, and you certainly have the experience to do that! However I think your response is biased somewhat by a presumption that the wife of the person questioning is actually considering leaving. That may not be the case - she's far more likely to be making a threat to change her husband's mind, she will not necessarily be intending to follow through with it as that's a very major step. Therefore I think the way you suggest of approaching it should be toned down a lot to minimise the chance of your response causing them to leave.

The first thing it should do is repeat and re-affirm your lifelong love for and commitment to her, regardless of what she chooses to do. Your love in unbreakable, period. Your commitment is breakable ONLY by her actual marriage to another man. It should say that the foregoing is only possible in an otherwise lost and sinful human due to your commitment to God and absolute determination to follow His Word rather than any traditions, philosophies, theories, or rules of men.

Absolutely agree that the first and most important thing to do is to reaffirm your love and commitment to her - but I think it would be very harmful to then immediately describe how that commitment might be broken. Don't presume she will leave, presume she will stay! Your presumption is quite likely to become reality. Just affirm your love.

Next, I would say that after careful study, I have concluded that PM is both Godly and sometimes (but not always) mandated in scripture

100% agree, but:

, but that the decision in a specific family and instance, yea or nay, is within the purview of the man, not the woman. It is between God and man, and his wife does not have the right to interpose herself with a veto or directive.

Completely true, but don't even go there at this stage. It's enough for her to come to grips with the idea that PM is ok and might be God's plan for your family. Immediately stating that you might force her into it against her will is just going to drive her away and harden her heart, so she is far less likely to change her views.

It is at this point that I would suggest becoming involved with BiblicalFamilies.org, and also offer to sit down with her, Bibles in hand, and study the subject together. There are also some very good videos on YouTube put out by some of our members. Affirm that if proved wrong, you will retreat from the position. Rest assured, it won't happen on THIS topic! But it IS always the right attitude to maintain, and one which you would want her to adopt as well.

Absolutely agree. The key thing is to get her looking into this issue herself, and this website is one great way of doing that, but not the only way.

Next, I would assure her that you are not actively engaged in seeking and courting anyone at present, assuming that to be true, and intend (careful wording, which allows for God to change things) to give her time to learn and adjust, if she so chooses. But that you are NOT free to turn your back on light revealed, nor to abdicate your authority or responsibility within the family, and have no intention of doing either.

Again agree. In terms of "not free to turn your back on light revealed", bear in mind there are two very separate issues here - the concept that PM is ok, and the idea that you might take another wife. Tackle the first one first, and leave the second until (and if) God reveals who your second wife is to be, or your wife comes around to the idea and wants to discuss it.

I would then explain that due to this changed understanding of right and wrong, I was modifying one clause of my wedding vows, openly and intentionally, not as an excuse for having cheated but as an open statement of changed requirement, much as if one had agreed to raise their children Roman Catholic but later converted to Seventh-day Adventism (about as far away as you can get in Christianity). I would also observe that in reviewing our wedding vows, I had noted a deficiency, and my modified version attempts to make up for it.

Must disagree with that one sorry. A vow is a vow. If you vowed to have her "forsaking all others", that was a serious promise you made that she should be able to rely on. With a monogamous mindset, she has probably always considered that the MOST IMPORTANT part of your vows - think about that for a minute. And now you want to get rid of it. How do you expect her to feel? If you start trying to go back on that, then what other promises might she fear you will break? Can she trust you any more in anything? Deciding that you want to retrospectively modify your vows without her consent is probably one of the most damaging things you could do to your marriage.

I think if you make a vow, even if it was foolish, provided it is not against God (and having one wife is not against God) you need to keep it. You're bound unless she releases you from it, either through her stating that to you, or her divorcing you and abandoning the vows of her own accord.

Focus on studying the issue with her, to come to an agreement about what God's will is for your family. Don't start this on an adversarial note, you'll never have a happy plural home that way. Lovingly support and teach her to bring her around.

I cannot stress enough that your current marriage is the most important thing to try and preserve. God gave you that wife. Love her and keep her. You don't know if he'll give you another, don't waste the first on a possibility.

 

[Isabella]

I cannot stress enough that your current marriage is the most important thing to try and preserve. God gave you that wife. Love her and keep her. You don't know if he'll give you another, don't waste the first on a possibility.

Agree 100%

 

[CecilW]

Interesting.

So she has given a clear an unequivocal statement of her position, and you suggest that you should NOT be equally clear in response.

Hmmm. How is that leadership? Or good communication? Or clarification of the true situation?

Monogamist vow: Whole 'nother topic. There are vows that should be broken. I gave one example in the OP. If you are married in the RC faith, you must vow to bring up your children as RCs. What if you convert? What if you were a Satanist priestess, married to Satan, and Jesus gets ahold of you? Should you forsake your vows, or should Satan be able to rely on you? What if you took a vow of revenge, to kill someone, but again God got ahold of you?

If you answer as I would expect, then we are agreed that there are some vows which must be broken. The only disagreement is whether THIS is one of them or not.

Can we agree that obtaining a wife is a transaction between a man and God? (If so, why not admit it? IS your wife honored by hiding your views?) And that a monogamist vow pre-says "No" to God? (It says, "If You choose to try to place another woman in my husband care, I will say 'No'.") And that doing so is a bad thing, which should then be repudiated? Continuing the line of thought, allowing the wife to have or maintain a veto over your repudiation of a wrong declaration to God interposes her between you and God. Bingo! Wrong. Must not be done.

Here's the interesting thing: The monogamist vow does NOT say anything about how you will treat HER. It has nothing to do with the relationship between the two of you. It only has to do with how you will treat someone else. In other words, it gives her authority over you. But you are supposed to be in authority over her. Circular authority is not authority, and again, interposes her authority between you and God. Whether God ever offers you a second wife or not is beside the point. It is a wrong vow from a man to a woman, and as such should be voided.

"Oh, but it doesn't hurt anyone." Really? How about the woman who needs you as a husband? Perhaps her kids (born and unborn) need you as their dad? Are they hurt by being left husbandless / fatherless? James 1:27. Back at the same place.

It is admirable to swear to your own hurt and abide by it. But to swear to another's hurt? *wagging finger* *grin* Nope. Apologize. Turn the other way.

You are, of course, welcome to disagree.

 

[Isabella]

I think a distinction should be made between vows to a person and vows to a faith, system or whatever you may no longer believe in, after all a conversion requires a drastic change of faith, a vow to a person on the other hand, well a man is only so good as his word, since when is a vow breakable just because it was made to a woman/wife?

I would say that if a man can break his vow to be so easily than I would not trust that man as far as i can throw him. Trust once lost is not easily re-gained.

Bels

 

[CecilW]

Fair enough, Bels. Pls re-read my post. I just substantially expanded it.

I respectfully maintain that the dividing line is not person vs faith, but right vs wrong.

A vow to do wrong, or a vow to harm another (a species of doing wrong), must be repudiated.

There is a difference between an open and thoughtful repudiation of one (found to be wrong) course in favor of another (Religious people call it "repentance") vs excusing failure to perform. The latter indeed breaks trust.

i respectfully submit that the former should incite further respect. If it does not, then again an unequal yoking has occured, and should be clearly revealed so that all parties involved may make informed choices for their own future. (Rather than basing those choices on half-truths and murky suppositions.)

Would pretending to retreat from your new belief while still sneakily pressing forward be honest to your wife? She's drawn a clear line in the sand. How does THAT inspire trust?

Please note: I am NOT equating "repudiation of a wrong vow" with going on the hunt. I am not recommending the latter at all! Just correcting the foundation of the relationship.

And Bels, for many of us, the whole reason we have to change our position on PM IS because of our faith. Sometimes against our own inclination!

Editorializing now: Life is short. I find no benefit in living in a lie. Been there. Done that. Got lots of scars. On another thread, I've strongly advocated being open about your new beliefs to friends and family (especially) vs waiting until you've already got a PM in place and then having to explain not only your beliefs but your deceit. We've seen numerous people who chose the other route and later testified that they woulda been better off with the open one.

My point with this thread is to advocate the same sort of openness and clarity between the husband and wife. She has given an open and clear statement of her current position. It seems only right (and honoring) to do the same in return.

Please note as well, that while she has drawn a firm line in the sand (an authoritarian non-negotiable position) he has taken a softer position already by offering to change his position anytime it can be shown from Scripture to be wrong. Thyere is a difference between softer and murky. I advocate FOR softer but AGAINST murky.

 

[Isabella]

Fair enough, Bels. Pls re-read my post. I just substantially expanded it.

I respectfully maintain that the dividing line is not person vs faith, but right vs wrong.

A vow to do wrong, or a vow to harm another (a species of doing wrong), must be repudiated.

And Bels, for many of us, the whole reason we have to change our position on PM IS because of our faith. Sometimes against our own inclination!

Accepting that PM is not unGodly is a whole different ballgame from having to live it. No one is compelled to live it (unless you happen to have a widowed sister in law you need to impregnate) therefore even if you believe accepting the 'rightness' of PM is a religious belief, living it (unless you are a fundamentalist Mormon) is not.

So, it is not wrong to vow to be faithful to only one woman, the wrongness would be to break that vow.

Please remember Cecil, two wrongs do not make a right.
Bels

 

[CecilW]

Please remember Cecil, two wrongs do not make a right.

True. But correcting a wrong IS right. And since the monogamist vow in essence interposes your wife and her decision between the man and God, it must be repudiated. Again, that is a whole different thing from going on the prowl. It merely corrects something that was said and done wrong, in ignorance.

But we may have to agree to disagree.

 

[Isabella]

But it was not wrong at the time as a person was a monogamist at the time, therefore the vow stands until you are realised from the vow, it is only a mistake if one took the vow mistakenly believing it was something it was not.

But we may have to agree to disagree.

I am worried about this Cecil because I think it goes to the heart of a man's integrity if he can go back on his word. I don't necessarily care all that much for whether he is 'seeking' or not, I care about whether a man's word is his bond.

I would not want to marry a man who treated his first wife like that, it is unethical to say, sorry that vow does not matter any more. it really is akin to a divorce really because any vow is sacred. Break it at your peril.

I will not agree on this. I find it offensive.

Bels

 

[T-C's Rebeka]

I guess my husband & I are fortunate because our vows do not have a clause like "forsaking all others" or anything to that effect.
The closest it has is "will you be faithful to her, cherish her,...".
Since I came to an understanding of biblical marriage, I understand that my husband taking a second wife is not breaking his faithfulness to me. So our vows do not need changing. What changed was our definition of faithfulness. "Faithfulness" no longer meant what a monogomous definition would have it to mean but now is defined with a biblical marriage understanding.


I feel that because God hates divorce, I do not see why He would lead a man into a second marriage before his first wife has come to acceptance of biblical marriage. When I hear a man say "god led me to my second wife", yet his first wife was not accepting biblical marriage, I usually think that the man is trying to use "god told me to" as an excuse for his lack of self-control. Since a husband is to love his wife as Christ love the church (Eph. 5) and God (Christ) is love (1 John 4) and Love is patient (1 Cr 13); then a husband should be patient with his first wife. (Just as Christ is patient with us.)

If that means decades of waiting then isn't that what it should be? Yes, the wife is wrong but would it not be the loving thing for the husband to continue to love her with patience while she is wrong. (Romans 5:8)

What is more of a good testament?
For a husband to have a correct understanding of biblical marriage and to take a second wife while his first wife is not understanding biblical marriage, OR for a husband to have a correct understanding of biblical marriage and not take a second wife while his first wife is not understanding biblical marriage.

IMHO, a husband who would push biblical marriage on his first wife to the point where the marriage is broken does not have an understanding of what the apostle Paul was warning about in 1 Corinthians 7.

Biblically, what is important is the salvation of souls and it hurts the cause of Christ to destroy a marriage on a "detail" of biblical living such as biblical marriage. Christ does not force salvation down our throats. He sets it out like a gift (because it is) and waits for us to accept it. Yes, if it wasn't for Him explaining to us what the gift really means we would never understand it, but He waits for us to accept it. Christ waits for us to come to the understanding.
Isn't it reasonable to expect a husband that is confessing to want to live a biblically sound life to try and have that same amount of patience with his first wife?

Also it does the "cause" for biblical marriage no good if those believing in it and practicing it are creating divorced women in the process.
To the "world" it will be another example of christians using the bible for excuse their behavior, just like husbands who beat their wife excusing it with the bible saying 'a wife is to submit'.

 

[CecilW]

If that means decades of waiting then isn't that what it should be? Yes, the wife is wrong but would it not be the loving thing for the husband to continue to love her with patience while she is wrong. (Romans 5:8)

Sure. In her absence, if need be. i've been waiting for my first wife to accept PM since early '98. She separated from me in '00 and divorced me in '01. I didn't meet my current wife until over a year later. I'm STILL waiting and loving and will until the day I die, if necessary. She hasn't been forced to follow me, and I haven't been forced to follow her.

... while his first wife is not understanding biblical marriage,

Can we draw a clear distinction between "not understanding" and "digging in her heels"?

What you say sounds wonderfully holy and loving. But I submit once again that it constitutes turning over final say, which equals control and authority, to the existing wife.

If two are walking along a path together, there is a HUGE difference between adjusting your pace to the slower partner's vs. letting them flat out say, "We're not going North, we're going South, or staying put!"

I advocate patience as much as anyone else. What the Bible can't accept, and so neither can I, is abdication.

For whatever it is worth, the way that God husbands us is to proceed with His plans, whether we choose to come along or not. And while Jesus is the Prince of Peace, He also said that He didn't come to bring peace, but a sword, and a man's enemies would be they of his own household. The man has to choose to advocate truth or back down.

In the OP of this thread, as in many men's lives, the line drawn in the sand is clear and stated in non-negotiable terms. "You continue on this path, and I'm gone," The issue isn't whether he has brought home a newer model or not. It isn't even if he's going courting or not. He may well not be. Just studying, talking, exploring the topic online, maybe meeting folks at a retreat (which she forbids him to attend). The mere fact of his continuance along this path, however slowly, rather than turning off of it at her direction, crosses her line.

So, does he pursue truth, come what may, or does he bow to her dug in heels?

If he has no particular conviction as to the need for PM, it is just a preference thing with him, that is one thing, perhaps. If he has come under firm conviction that it is God's plan to provide for those of His daughters who are stuck in an unplanned and unwanted state of singleness, then that is another.

I LOVE the idea that God won't convict a man and lead him in a different direction than his wife is willing to go. But it just doesn't match up to reality. Men give their hearts to God, and wives leave. Men become convicted about Sabbath or Tongues or some other issue and "Christian" wives leave. God is not bound by wives' decisions or stubbornness. (Nor men's for that matter.) Neither does He force them. But every decision any of us makes bears consequences, and that is fair enough.

Which brings me back to the original premise of this thread. A clear communication has occurred. It seems most loving and appropriate to offer an equally clear communication in return. This leaves everyone knowing where they are at, and free to choose an informed course of action. They may decide to ignore the effalump in the room, work at persuading each other, study together, abdicate, or go their own ways. But no murky misleading communication has taken place.

What good does it do to say, "Yes, Dear. I'll back down and wait for you, however long it takes." while continuing with your studies or even simply your conviction, when she has drawn a clear "ain't going there" line in the sand?

 

[FollowingHim]

So she has given a clear an unequivocal statement of her position, and you suggest that you should NOT be equally clear in response.

No she hasn't. Don't consider her words, consider the MEANING. She's a woman, they think differently to men.

She has given a threat in the hope that it will generate the response she wants. She is being a manipulative woman. She may not have even considered the possibility that you will not give in to her possibly entirely hollow threat, and could be completely shocked that you would call her bluff and expect her to actually follow through.

You'd be completely right if we were discussing a disagreement between two men, but that's not the situation here. We're dealing with emotion, not clear statements of position.

Monogamist vow: Whole 'nother topic. There are vows that should be broken. I gave one example in the OP. If you are married in the RC faith, you must vow to bring up your children as RCs. What if you convert? What if you were a Satanist priestess, married to Satan, and Jesus gets ahold of you? Should you forsake your vows, or should Satan be able to rely on you? What if you took a vow of revenge, to kill someone, but again God got ahold of you?

All of these examples are against God. It is ungodly to teach your children to worship Mary (if you have come to believe that is a sin), or to follow Satan, or to kill somebody out of revenge. It is not however ungodly to have only one wife.

Can we agree that obtaining a wife is a transaction between a man and God?

Certainly, and as her husband you have every right to make any decision about her life. The problem is that you have, while in this authority, already made this particular decision and solemnly vowed you will stick by it.

Say you had made a solemn vow to her that you would never expect her to move to North Korea - that seems a logical thing to promise, it's a dangerous place, but it would be a foolish vow to make as God could well intend you to be missionaries there, you just don't know it yet. Nevertheless, as her husband and with full authority to decide what happened in your lives, you made that decision and solemnly vowed you would keep it. How would she feel if you went back on that? Would she not question every commitment you had ever made to her if you were willing to break that one? Would this not be completely understandable?

As her husband, you have full authority to decide whether or not to take another wife. And WITH this authority you made the decision to take only her, and vowed to her that you would keep that position all your life. Sure it was a foolish vow to make, and was probably made under a false understanding of scripture, but you made it. And you had the authority to make it also, since you are the complete master of your household and your wives.

In other words, it gives her authority over you.

In practice, yes. But that's our own fault (I too made the same vow to my wife. The same is probably true for most men here). We should never have made those vows, but we did, and now we have to deal with the consequences.

"Oh, but it doesn't hurt anyone." Really? How about the woman who needs you as a husband? Perhaps her kids (born and unborn) need you as their dad? Are they hurt by being left husbandless / fatherless? James 1:27. Back at the same place.

I would make a very strong distinction between a man who is discussing the idea of PM with his wife as a potential future option, and somebody to whom God has already revealed his second wife. It comes down to being a good steward of what God has given you.

In the first case he has no idea what God's plans for his own life are, so must be a good steward of the one wife he knows God has given him.

In the second case he knows God has given him two wives. He must be a good steward of both, and do whatever it takes to take his second wife into his protection while again attempting to keep his first.

It is admirable to swear to your own hurt and abide by it. But to swear to another's hurt? *wagging finger* *grin* Nope. Apologize. Turn the other way.

I agree. In the second case you have sworn to the hurt of another, and your decisions then could by necessity be quite different. But I believe in this thread we are discussing the first case, based on my reading of the comment you quoted - correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[CecilW]

It is not however ungodly to have only one wife.

Haven't said it is! Sheez! I said it is ungodly to SWEAR to only have one wife, as it pre-states a "No" response to any future contrary leading from God. And thus should be repudiated, as would any other oath to walk contrary to Him. That's it! I've said over and over and over in this thread that I am NOT advocating running right ut to get another wife. One might NEVER have more than one. So what? *shrug* My point is to get your lines of authority and organization and relationship straightened out.

Pls check the OP again. The situation posited, which many men here have faced even if you have been fortunate enough not to, is that a wife demands that the man turn off of this path and repudiate the new light he has received.

If she's "just being a woman", as you suggest, and trying on the idea to see where it will get her, then what better way of shutting that sort of attempt down than making it clear that it goes nowhere? Or do you relish the idea of having more and more decisions questioned, balked, and ultimatums given?

If God called you to North Korea and you had sworn to your wife to never move her there, what would YOUR solution be? Tell God "no, Sir"? Set her up in a safe location at "home" and go alone? Force her to go along?

Dear BF Member who wrote the original question: You can clearely see a number of strong arguments and opinions about various ideas here. Like the rest of us, you will have to sort these ideas out on your knees before God and decide how to proceed. Our prayers are with you.

And with that, I am going to lovk this thread as I believe it has served its purpose, and do not want to get completely off into debate. Perhaps it is best NOT turned into a FAQ at this time. *sry grin* Thank you all for your contributions.