Really????

[_ludwigm]

Maybe the temple first rule is fairly new. I believe the one year rule is fairly new.

Are You a member? I doubt.

*****************************

Maybe it was permissible back then because they would have to travel to a temple. I honestly don't recall. Does anyone have a definitive answer? It seems like the Romneys got special treatment, even so, because the travel obviously wasn't a financial burden for them.

Answered by JB:

There is still a rule that allows for civil wedding with a waiver of the one year wait is someone has to travel a long distance to get to a temple.

Long distance?
In Europe (&The Isle of England), 300 mile is a long distance.
In US, 300 year is a big time...

*****************************

I totally forgot about this rule of a 1 year wait if you get married civily first.
Ah, to me, yet another form of control in a way to get couples to go to the temple first.
Always with the temple, and always the temple requires tithes.
It's a sick circle.
I recall my attorney that did all of the adoption paperwork for my father and I in my teens. He and his wife married outside the temple and were punished for it. They couldn't get married in the temple and it really hurt them a lot. They finally got permission at about 8 or 9 months to go get sealed - but they had to get it from the mysterious FP.

I am lazy to search all of my comments about this "1 year wait" stupidity.
In Hungary - and I am an eurotrash from there - any religious marriage can consummate. Catholic, Reformed, Mormon, Voodoo, all at once or after each other. They don't count.

The government has the civil ceremony. Once and for all. After or before, one may cut the throat of a freckled unicorn to legalize that union.

If in US any poet, preacher, chief or wizard have the right to legalize the same unions - then be it.
You have got what You deserve.

*****************************
by the way
Can I marry in one of Your 49 (or whatever) states, fitting to different rules of different church/sect/denomination - without having my name to lose because of polygamy?
Can the federal offices detect my 49 (or whatever) wives?

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Maybe the temple first rule is fairly new. I believe the one year rule is fairly new.

Maybe it was permissible back then because they would have to travel to a temple. I honestly don't recall. Does anyone have a definitive answer? It seems like the Romneys got special treatment, even so, because the travel obviously wasn't a financial burden for them.

There is still a rule that allows for civil wedding with a waiver of the one year wait is someone has to travel a long distance to get to a temple.

But when did that rule come into existence and did it always include the condition that the couple doesn't consummate until after the sealing?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x72cg5 ... g-on_music

[_Yoda]

But when did that rule come into existence and did it always include the condition that the couple doesn't consummate until after the sealing?

As far as I am aware, there has never been a rule regarding consummating the marriage until after the sealing. If you are married, you are married.

Obviously, the norm is temple marriage first. However, if you are stationed in Europe, or an area where a temple is not readily available, it is permissable to get married civilly first. Now, simply getting civily first in the States requires a year wait. But if you are overseas, there are some differences, as Jason stipulated.

Also, as in Ludwigm's case, in many countries in Europe, it is government protocol to get married civily first. Residents there have no choice. Under the law of the land, they must be marrried civily first. Therefore, there is no year wait required.

I personally think that the year wait should be done away with in the US as well, but that is a subject for another thread.

[_ludwigm]

... in many countries in Europe, it is government protocol to get married civily first...

I must resist a little: I would not say first, the correct word is only.

People can marry in temples or around sacred places - even more than one time - they are not married officially. No timing requirement.

You are right that the routine is that the civil ceremony come first. The offices work on weekdays, then the couple go to their temples at sabbath or sunday...

[_Yoda]

... in many countries in Europe, it is government protocol to get married civily first...

I must resist a little: I would not say first, the correct word is only.

People can marry in temples or around sacred places - even more than one time - they are not married officially. No timing requirement.

You are right that the routine is that the civil ceremony come first. The offices work on weekdays, then the couple go to their temples at sabbath or sunday...

Thanks for clarifying, Ludwigm!

I think it is really cool that this is an International board, and we can learn about cultures from different countries!