Tech Forum

I am engaged to a man who is not a member of the church and my wonderful bishop is going to perform the civil ceremony in April. But I was wondering what the churches policy is on getting married at city hall (essentially eloping) and then still having a ceremony for friends and family in April. Is this frowned on by the church? Is there any policy against it?

I can't think of any such restriction - just limits on performing a temple marriage after a civil one. There are limitation if done in the chapel (no photos, limitations on music).

wifeofahero wrote:I was wondering what the churches policy is on getting married at city hall (essentially eloping) and then still having a ceremony for friends and family in April.

Talk to your bishop. He is the best person to know the ins and outs of this type of situation. He will be able to answer all of your questions, and will probably have an additional helpful suggestion or two if this is what you really wish to do.

Most importantly, he (and the stake president) is the one who interprets the policy. So it's whatever he is comfortable with.

russellhltn wrote:Most importantly, he (and the stake president) is the one who interprets the policy. So it's whatever he is comfortable with.

I am hoping in this case that the bishop is familiar with this particular section of the Handbook, which is very specific, and provides the member with a much better solution than the one proposed.

The concept of "eloping" is getting married secretly and implies not letting parents or others know, who should know. The main concern there is honesty. However, you say "essentially" eloping so that may not be your intent.

Outside of policies relating to temple sealing, there are no policies I know of about having multiple wedding ceremonies.

wifeofahero wrote:I am engaged to a man who is not a member of the church and my wonderful bishop is going to perform the civil ceremony in April. But I was wondering what the churches policy is on getting married at city hall (essentially eloping) and then still having a ceremony for friends and family in April. Is this frowned on by the church? Is there any policy against it?

To be clear, if you are married at city hall, that is the civil ceremony. Whatever the bishop does after that, he isn't officiating at a marriage. So if you haven't told the bishop you plan to do this, you need to. Otherwise, he'll be tipped off when you can't produce an marriage license with a place for his signature.

Now, one option that is mentioned in the handbook (for after a temple marriage, but it may work for after a civil marriage as well) is a ring ceremony. But the ring ceremony can't replicate elements of the marriage ceremony and there is no exchange of vows. If you have his family arriving for a wedding, it may confuse them a considerable amount when the two of you don't actually appear to marry each other.

If you're planning to elope you need not call upon a bishop or other church officer. In fact it would be considerate to let the bishop off the hook. Any gathering at the church building after your civil marriage just has to follow building use policies. If you really want a ring ceremony it seems best to let the bishop perform the civil marriage as well. If you're just in a hurry and can't wait until the gathering in April then you should just leave the gathering as a reception and inform all concerned.