Can we get married the "normal" way before being married in the temple?

[MormonGirl02]

Hi everyone. My Mormon boyfriend and I are wondering if we can be married the "normal" way before getting married in the temple? By "normal" way I mean just having an ordinary marriage like other Christians have.

[bytor2112]

Of course you can have a civil marriage which is for time only or until death do you part......but, why wouldn't you want to be sealed for time and eternity?

[Just_A_Guy]

The general rule is that you'd have to wait a year between a civil ceremony (including a ceremony held in a church--LDS or otherwise) and a temple sealing. The exception is if you live in a country whose civil laws do not recognize a Mormon temple sealing.

[utcowboy]

Yes, you can. My wife and I were married for 8 years before we went to the Temple.

[sensibility]

As they've said, yes, you can, but you'd then have to wait a full year before going to the temple because temple marriages are legally recognised in the US.

Looking at your profile, though, it looks as though you aren't a member right now--it's possible that you might have to wait a year from baptism anyway, so getting a civil marriage wouldn't slow you down any. I'm not sure about the rules concerning rebaptism.

[skippy740]

You'd have to wait a full year because the Church doesn't want anyone to feel "incentivized" to hold a secular ceremony and then go the the temple the same day for a sealing.

It just needs to have the proper emphasis.

If you're not a member, get married and get baptized. You can go to the temple for your sealing after a year of church membership.

If you are a member, ask yourself why you're wanting a secular ceremony? Is it to appease your relatives and other people? (This could be an exercise in putting the Lord first before man.)

[Dravin]

If you are a member, ask yourself why you're wanting a secular ceremony? Is it to appease your relatives and other people? (This could be an exercise in putting the Lord first before man.)

On that note you can still hold a reception, its pretty standard in my experience if you want to include people in something more ceremonial. Actually I've heard you don't exchange rings in the temple so you can do that at the reception (IIRC that's what my sister did) for those who can't attend the sealing for whatever reason.

Hi everyone. My Mormon boyfriend and I are wondering if we can be married the "normal" way before getting married in the temple? By "normal" way I mean just having an ordinary marriage like other Christians have.

Also, if you are living with your boyfriend one of you'll have to either move out or you'll have to get married before you can get baptized and then wait a year to go to the temple to get married anyway. (You can go to do baptisms for the dead before that time though).

[MormonGirl02]

As they've said, yes, you can, but you'd then have to wait a full year before going to the temple because temple marriages are legally recognised in the US.

Looking at your profile, though, it looks as though you aren't a member right now--it's possible that you might have to wait a year from baptism anyway, so getting a civil marriage wouldn't slow you down any. I'm not sure about the rules concerning rebaptism.

Yes, I am not a member right now. That is why we are wanting to have a civil marriage 6 months from now. I will just be getting baptized in about 6 months. Then, if we have to wait a year for the temple sealing, that is fine. :)

[Maureen]

skippy740 said:

You'd have to wait a full year because the Church doesn't want anyone to feel "incentivized" to hold a secular ceremony and then go the the temple the same day for a sealing.

But members who live in the UK do it that way.

[Dravin]

skippy740 said: But members who live in the UK do it that way.

Does the UK recognize sealings as legal marriages? If they don't Just_A_Guy covered that:

The general rule is that you'd have to wait a year between a civil ceremony (including a ceremony held in a church--LDS or otherwise) and a temple sealing. The exception is if you live in a country whose civil laws do not recognize a Mormon temple sealing.

Edit: Wikipedia (I know, not an infallible source) indicates that:

In Britain the law requires that a marriage be performed at a public ceremony (the same also holds true for Austria). Since attendance at a temple sealing is restricted, a couple will be married locally by a person who is duly authorized to perform marriages. This person will usually be a registrar of marriages. The marriage can be performed at the local registrar's office, or in some cases at an LDS chapel. Some Bishops or Branch Presidents have been officially given the title of a deputy registrar, and as such are legally able to perform a civil ceremony in the chapel. The couple will then travel to the nearest LDS temple (London or Preston) for their temple marriage.

Edited May 12, 2009 by Dravin

[Maureen]

Originally Posted by Maureen But members who live in the UK do it that way. Originally Posted by Dravin Does the UK recognize sealings as legal marriages?

That's my point. They are motivated to be married and sealed that way since they have no choice.

[Dravin]

That's my point. They are motivated to be married and sealed that way since they have no choice.

Both MormonGirl02 and Skippy740 are in the US though so its not surprising he's talking about the way things stand in the US, so any motivation members in the US (or any country which recognizes sealings as legal marriages) have to do a civil ceremony as opposed to a Temple one right off the bat isn't legal necessity.

If the point is that things aren't the same everywhere, duly noted.

Edited May 12, 2009 by Dravin

[Faded]

Hi everyone. My Mormon boyfriend and I are wondering if we can be married the "normal" way before getting married in the temple? By "normal" way I mean just having an ordinary marriage like other Christians have.

The answer is obvious. Yes you can. Why would you suspect that you couldn't?

And no a person doesn't necessarily have to wait 1 year before being married in the temple. One might assume as much because most cases where an LDS girl marries and LDS boy in a civil marriage and not the temple, it's because they committed fornication. They wait for 1 year because of the fornication. The civil marriage has nothing to do with it. Additionally, newly baptized members have to be members in good standing for one year before they can be sealed in the temple.

I think we're getting a bit silly, painting civil marriage as some kind of sinful thing. I think if there was a reason for having a civil marriage first between two temple worthy Latter Day Saints, then they can sort it out with their Bishop. I think I've heard of cases where a civil ceremony happened (generally to appease non-member family) and then the temple sealing happens shortly thereafter. Why would anyone have a problem with that?

Edited May 12, 2009 by Faded

[Islander]

Yes, I am not a member right now. That is why we are wanting to have a civil marriage 6 months from now. I will just be getting baptized in about 6 months. Then, if we have to wait a year for the temple sealing, that is fine. :)

Why not get baptized now? Baptism has nothing to do with your marriage. If it is true that you are trying to folow God's command then start now.

Just a thought.

[Wingnut]

On that note you can still hold a reception, its pretty standard in my experience if you want to include people in something more ceremonial. Actually I've heard you don't exchange rings in the temple so you can do that at the reception (IIRC that's what my sister did) for those who can't attend the sealing for whatever reason.

Ring ceremonies are somewhat discouraged by the Church. Not so much discouraged as cautioned against, as their format often resembles a typical wedding format.

“Though the exchanging of rings is not part of the temple marriage ceremony, rings may appropriately be exchanged at the conclusion of the temple marriage ceremony in the room where that ceremony takes place. To avoid confusion with the marriage ceremony, it is not appropriate to exchange rings at any other time or place in the temple or on the temple grounds.

“A couple may exchange rings in locations other than at the temple. The circumstances should be consistent with the dignity of their temple marriage. The exchange should not appear to replicate any part of the marriage ceremony. For instance, there should be no exchanging of vows on that occasion” (Bulletin, 1989-4, p. 1).

[Dravin]

And no a person doesn't necessarily have to wait 1 year before being married in the temple.

See, that is news to me, I was always under the impression that one needed to wait a year after a civil ceremony before a sealing except as noted in countries where a sealing is not recognized even if both involved were members in good standing with current temple recommends. The interesting bit is while I've been told/gotten that impression I've never been told why that would be the case.

[sensibility]

It's church policy that, except in countries where temple marriages are not recognised by the government, a couple must wait a year following a civil ceremony. See here, under the heading 'Less than a year'.

[Faded]

It's church policy that, except in countries where temple marriages are not recognised by the government, a couple must wait a year following a civil ceremony. See here, under the heading 'Less than a year'.

Odd. Clear enough that I'm wrong on this matter and I acknowledge that. But the policy seems a bit silly. I wonder if there is some kind of official explanation?

[Maureen]

Wingnut said:

Ring ceremonies are somewhat discouraged by the Church.

I adamantly disagree. My nephew and his wife were encourage by their bishop to have a ring ceremony since they had so many non-member family and friends. The trend now is to consider the feelings of guests and make them feel included in the celebration; a ring ceremony does just that. I have read no where that the LDS church discourages them; just the opposite.

[Maya]

My family is not members and neitheris my DHs family and we had wedding in Stockholm temple a party in Finland to my family and a party in Norway to his family...20 years ago!

So you can have the party right after to the whole gang and make it more like a wedding by muic and march to teh front and maybe by a poem like in may seremonies nowadays.

[Just_A_Guy]

I *think* the Church has loosened its stance about ring ceremonies generally, but IIRC the CHI still states that ring ceremonies should not be structured so as to resemble an actual wedding.

[Maureen]

...but IIRC the CHI still states that ring ceremonies should not be structured so as to resemble an actual wedding.

I think it's allowed to resemble a wedding minus the vows. You can walk down the aisle, have music, make it something personal for the couple.

Ring CeremoniesFor couples with large groups of non-members attending, a ring ceremony is becoming the trend. You can make the exchange as personalized as you like......LDS Weddings: Sacred, Not Secret

[Moksha]

I never understood that one year wait.

[Just_A_Guy]

I think it's allowed to resemble a wedding minus the vows. You can walk down the aisle, have music, make it something personal for the couple.

Here we go, from the CHI (2006, p. 82)

A couple may arrange with their bishop to hold a special meeting for relatives and friends who do not have temple recommends. This meeting provides an opportunity for those who cannot enter a temple to feel included in the marriage and to learn something of the eternal nature of the marriage covenant. The meeting may include a prayer and special music, followed by the remarks of a priesthood leader. No ceremony is performed, and no vows are exchanged. [emphasis added]

[Islander]

I had limited exposure to the subject in terms of personal experience. It is a difficult situation (non-temple weddings) for all involved so I wonder why the soon-to-be-wedded do not just keep it simple?

Without pointing fingers or sounding judgmental, they can't have a wedding and ceremony as they wanted because of the choices they have made for their lives. Why burden others trying do more than it is possible just to satisfy tradition, friends or their own expectations and dreams?

Do the right thing, do it now and work your hardest to regain your standing before God. Some things can not be (at least at the time we want them to be) and we should be content with that.

Just some thoughts.

Edited May 12, 2009 by Islander