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

[Maureen]

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.

It may not be considered a ceremony in the stricted sense but it is still a gathering of family and friends to witness a couple exchanging rings, words spoken, music played and anything that might be significant for the couple. For example: My nephew and his wife are both of Scotish heritage, so their ring ceremony had a Scotish theme. They had someone play the bagpipes, both the groom and bestman wore kilts, the groom's family welcomed the bride by pinning a tartan sash on her. They both walked together down the aisle in a procession and recession. The bishop talked about the couple jokingly, everyone knew what he meant and we all laughed. It is so far the best Mormon wedding I have ever been to. The LDS church is a family focused church. What's more family focused than witnessing a couple exchange rings on the day they start their own family? Edited May 12, 2009 by Maureen

[Vort]

I never understood that one year wait.

I do.

[Faded]

I never understood that one year wait.

I don't understand it either. Trying to point people in the right direction and have them do the right thing is fine and well. But seriously, the policy is treating civil marriage like a sin. Since when is it a sin to get married?

Seems like a policy with good intentions but I don't think it's wise to take a hard line on the matter. Otherwise you're potentially going to be taken as punishing people for doing nothing wrong.

[Wingnut]

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.

Perhaps it would behoove you to read the entirety of what I posted:

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).

[MichaelPAGuy]

I don't understand the church telling people what they can and can't say at a ring ceremony? Who is the church to tell anyone what you can and cannot say at YOUR own ring ceremony?

[Vort]

Who is the church to tell anyone what you can and cannot say at YOUR own ring ceremony?

The Church is the kingdom of God.

[Islander]

I don't understand the church telling people what they can and can't say at a ring ceremony? Who is the church to tell anyone what you can and cannot say at YOUR own ring ceremony?

Well, you can base jump off the Twins Falls, ID bridge in a clown suit with an Elvis impersonator officiating and the Church will not care. BUT if you want to marry in the Church chapel with Priesthood authority officiating there are some guidelines. Why is it so hard to understand?

[Maureen]

Perhaps it would behoove you to read the entirety of what I posted:

Originally Posted by Wingnut

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

I still disagree. I don't believe they "somewhat discourage" or "caution against".

M.

[MormonGirl02]

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.

Because I was baptized once before, then withdrew my membership, and am now coming back. So they're making me wait 6 months.

[Hemidakota]

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.

I would not even go there....others may testified to this fact of the probability will be against you later in marrying in the temple.

[Soul_Searcher]

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.

You are right, it is not infalliable. Bishops are authorised to perform marriages and I have NEVER seen or heard of a couple being married in a registry office and they are ALWAYS done by the Bishop. Believe me I've been to a lot of weddings!

Weddings are a big thing over here. In all honesty weddings are big everywhjere apart from the American LDS population that do seem to see civil marriage as a bad thing or a 'sin' as some have pointed out. Even discouraging vows!

I would like to state that I had a big wedding with all the works. We made vows. It meant so much to me, it was the best moment of my life. Everyone cried, I felt different from that moment on, and I still remember my vows to this day and take them seriously. It meant even more becuase I frankly dont remember making any vows in the sealing. I dont remember much about it atall but I dont think we were even required to speak. If I had not had my proper wedding beforehand I would not have felt married, somehow cheated out of a wedding. I know some people will not like that and say it is not about that, but weddings are also cultural and it was really important to me and something I had dreamed from the moment I was old enough to understand what a wedding was. I see no reason why having a civil marriage is a bad thing, especially if you have non member relatives. Why would anyone not want their parents or family to see them make the most imprtant promises in their life? If either of my parents could not have come to my wedding or sealing I would have cancelled it, and I very nearly considered cancelling the sealing as there was an issue with one of my parents recommends. Luckily it turned out ok, but I would not have got married if they couldnt have been there, I would have waited till they could.

At the end of the day I dont think God will take anyone to task over having a civil marriage. If you are then sealed, what is the problem?? As long as you are married then sealed does it really matter how you do it?????

Edited May 13, 2009 by Soul_Searcher

[Dravin]

You are right, it is not infalliable. Bishops are authorised to perform marriages and I have NEVER seen or heard of a couple being married in a registry office and they are ALWAYS done by the Bishop. Believe me I've been to a lot of weddings!

Doesn't mean it isn't done. I'll defer on the Bishops but they could have been recognized as registrars as per the link.

Also, apparently there is some phraseology from here about a place of worship being registered for marriages, if such is the case temples may not be places of worship registered for marriages and thus you can't perform a legal wedding in one. Or not, I don't know if you simply fill out a form or if a walk through or something needs to take place to prevent you from trying to register your house, if the latter is the case the Temple wouldn't be open for a walk through. I suppose somebody could ask them (the register's office) if the Temples in the UK are registered as such.

Edit:

Also found this poking around the first link posted:

Whilst the law relating to civil marriages in England and Wales allows couples to marry in the Register Office or approved premises of their choice, irrespective of their place of residence, you can only be married in a religious building outside the district in which either of you lives if certain conditions are met. Our staff will be glad to give advice on this matter.

In some cases a registrar from the district in which the place of marriage is situated will need to attend the wedding to register the marriage. You should find out if this is necessary and check with the Register Office concerned to make sure that a registrar is available for the date and time of the marriage.

So if you don't live in the same district as the Temples that might disqualify you, also if its one of those cases a register from the district needs to attend that would prevent a temple wedding as well. Hey, Soul_Searcher, would you be willing to call up your local register office and just straight up ask them if if you could get legally married LDS Temples/are registered places for marriage/if ceremonies performed in them are legally recognized?

Edited May 13, 2009 by Dravin

[sensibility]

To offer another perspective, one reason my husband and I were married in the US (he's a British citizen, I'm a US) was that I actively didn't want to have a civil ceremony. I've always wanted my marriage to begin with an ordinance before God, sealed by His priesthood -- not with a promise before a legal authority.

I think Saints in this green and pleasant land are raised to anticipate a civil ceremony, and therefore care about it a great deal more; on the other hand, I wasn't raised with that vision, and so the idea of a civil ceremony was distasteful to me when I knew I could begin my marriage with the simple, eternal beauty of a sealing instead. Our temple ceremony was satisfying and real in every way; I didn't feel at all cheated.

By the way, Soul_Searcher, there are vows in the sealing, and you do speak, though you say 'Yes' rather than the more traditional 'I do'. It's a very lovely ceremony, though a bit much to grasp the first time you hear it. I certainly didn't catch it all, even the first time I went back to do sealings. :)

Dravin, temple marriages are definitely not recognised here. If they were, the UK would have the same rules regarding the one-year wait after a civil wedding.

Edited May 13, 2009 by sensibility

[ADoyle90815]

The way I see it, a civil ceremony is just fine, especially if nobody in your family is LDS. Even if people understand the reasons for a temple ceremony being private unless you're able to get into the temple, they still have hurt feelings. People in that situation tend to keep their hurt feelings to themselves in order to keep the peace, since there might be a ring ceremony. I'm just giving my non-LDS views here, but I do understand how important it is for those who are members to be married in the temple.

[Moksha]

This is an issue that has come up many times before. I think the best answer for a young LDS couple who wish to either include missing family members and friends or to have all the pomp and ceremony with a bridal procession and rose petals strewn in the aisle, would be to have a ceremony after the Temple sealing.

[ploomf]

I don't think civil marriages are wrong or sinful and I certainly don't think less of anyone for choosing a civil marriage. I wasn't raised LDS and so I certainly dreamed of my own wedding when I was a little girl. I would not choose to have a civil wedding and then wait a year to get married in the temple though. Maybe it was growing up in a home where there wasn't a priesthood holder and my family wasn't sealed together but I'm not willing to settle for less than a worthy priesthood holder and a temple marriage.

I will, however, have a ring ceremony for my family afterwards. None of my family (immediate or extended) are active members of the church so none of them will be able to see me get married. I love my family and while I won't delay my temple marriage so they can see me get married in a civil ceremony I will do whatever else I can to help them feel involved in my wedding day.

[Moksha]

I will do whatever else I can to help them feel involved in my wedding day.

Good for you. As the saying goes, "families are forever", so it would seem such a blunder to create hurt feelings with the excluded portion of your friends and family. They too wish to celebrate this event with you.

[Maureen]

ploomf said:

...I will do whatever else I can to help them feel involved in my wedding day.

Exactly, thank you!

...Marriage is not a private event. It is not a mere exchange of vows between a couple. It is an act of the community -- a contract between the couple and the people around them................................MormonTimes - When joy, grief share same day.....

[HEthePrimate]

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.)

The proper emphasis is on family. It's not a matter of putting the Lord first before man, but rather of putting family before the Church. (The Church leaders DO tell us that family comes first, do they not?) IMO, people should be allowed to have both a civil and a temple ceremony, even if they're on the same day. There's nothing at all wrong with that. Marriage is one of the most important events in a family's life, and not to allow accommodating the family is just messed up.

HEP

[Islander]

The proper emphasis is on family. It's not a matter of putting the Lord first before man, but rather of putting family before the Church. (The Church leaders DO tell us that family comes first, do they not?) IMO, people should be allowed to have both a civil and a temple ceremony, even if they're on the same day. There's nothing at all wrong with that. Marriage is one of the most important events in a family's life, and not to allow accommodating the family is just messed up.

HEP

GOD comes first. The Church leaders asks us to never put the things of the world before the family. But the center, purpose and reason why we know and understand that precept is because God has given it onto us. Our lives, mariages and families are stronger because God is at the center of who we are and what we do.

Again, this is an issue that part member families and less actives have and it is a byproduct, precisely, of those choices and circunstances. On account of sounding insensitive, we are free to chose and exercise our choices but not the consequences of them. I made the point above already on a different post. You can marry anybody you want, be as eccentric as you want wherever you want. But if you want Priesthood authority officiating the wedding ceremony and the Church chapel there are some guidelines. Do not forget, this is the Lords's Church and He alone sets His order. We just carry out His instructions.

[ReubenDunn]

I lived in the UK for 19 years, and have been sealed in the London Temple.

UK law, at the moment, states that marriage services be open to the public and held in a public arena, i.e., church, etc.

Temples are considered to be closed to the public.

Church policy states that in countries where the temple marriage is not recognised as being valid, then a civil marriage can be performed, the couple is encouraged to have their bishop/branch president perform the service.

The couple have at that point 24 hours to have that marriage sealed in the temple. After that deadline, they will have to wait for a year before being sealed.

As far as marrying outside of the temple, in countries, like the United States, church policy states that 12 months have to pass before a sealing can be done.

[HEthePrimate]

GOD comes first. The Church leaders asks us to never put the things of the world before the family. But the center, purpose and reason why we know and understand that precept is because God has given it onto us. Our lives, mariages and families are stronger because God is at the center of who we are and what we do.

Again, this is an issue that part member families and less actives have and it is a byproduct, precisely, of those choices and circunstances. On account of sounding insensitive, we are free to chose and exercise our choices but not the consequences of them. I made the point above already on a different post. You can marry anybody you want, be as eccentric as you want wherever you want. But if you want Priesthood authority officiating the wedding ceremony and the Church chapel there are some guidelines. Do not forget, this is the Lords's Church and He alone sets His order. We just carry out His instructions.

Yes, God does come first. However, the Church is not God, and I believe God puts family before the Church. I think that having to tell your family "Sorry, but you can't attend my wedding because you're not members of the Mormon Church" is messed up. IMO, there would be nothing wrong with doing a civil ceremony and a temple ceremony on the same day, much as they do in countries where that is a legal requirement.

HEP

[Just_A_Guy]

Was it also "messed up" for the Church to teach that converts should completely forsake their non-member families for the rest of their lives and move to "Zion" (wherever that was deemed to be)?

I don't think the Church's current policy is, or needs to be, absolute and unchangeable through all eternity. But I have faith that it is currently in place for some very good reasons. And when you look at what was asked of Church members in the past--we're getting off very lightly indeed.

[HEthePrimate]

Was it also "messed up" for the Church to teach that converts should completely forsake their non-member families for the rest of their lives and move to "Zion" (wherever that was deemed to be)?

I don't think the Church's current policy is, or needs to be, absolute and unchangeable through all eternity. But I have faith that it is currently in place for some very good reasons. And when you look at what was asked of Church members in the past--we're getting off very lightly indeed.

And Mormons wonder why so many people think of us as a cult...

"Sorry Mom and Dad, you can't attend my wedding because my Church says so."

[Soul_Searcher]

HE, I agree with you. I think if it is ok for the UK an Austria, etc, then why not the U.S?

Just-a-guy, I'd like to hear what reasons you think it is the way it is.