I'm posting anonymously once again.

Tonight, we met with my wife's long-apostate uncle to talk about our experiences leaving the church. It was a great conversation that led to us talking a lot about my wife's family and, at the end, he brought up a number of things that my wife's TBM parents did in the past, including claiming that my wife may have been conceived out of wedlock.

We know that my in-laws have been less than forthcoming on a number of issues and they have tried to convince us that the uncle is evil (which we know their claims were exaggerated at minimum, if not largely false). We don't have any reason to doubt the uncle, but some of the claims he made about them are shocking, so we are trying to verify this one (if we can) in part to see if the others likely have any credibility.

His claim was that my wife was conceived out of wedlock. Here are the facts that we know for sure: my in-laws were married in a civil ceremony 5 weeks after they met. They had a temple ceremony over a year after they were married civilly, and they claim that they didn't marry in the temple because they wanted family to be able to attend the wedding. They also claim that the rules for temple weddings forbade them from getting married in the temple for a year because they were married civilly. Also of note is that the family was not supportive of the marriage (they claim because my wife's father was not a returned missionary). They both left Rick's College (possibly mid-semester) after my wife was conceived (they say dropped out, but we're suspecting kicked out for honor code violations). They say that their civil ceremony was on a conspicuous date, which makes us wonder if they aren't fibbing about the actual date to take attention away from timing and put it on the day they decided to get married. My wife was born 10.5 months (to the day) after they claim they got married (it was a very small ceremony with only them and their bishop and maybe one or two others present). My wife recently saw her mom look at a picture of herself holding my newborn wife and say, "I was only a baby having a baby." This is a phrase that she's used frequently in the past to refer to young, unwed mothers.


We know that if you have sex out of wedlock, you aren't allowed to get a temple recommend for a year, so we are wondering if a civil marriage has the same restrictions. If it doesn't, my wife will know that they've been lying to her about a number of things and it also helps to give credibility to the other things her uncle said. That will help us determine how much she's able to trust her parents. Thanks.

My parents also wed civilly 1st, because my father couldn't get a recommend. My mom said they had to wait a year to go to the temple---> growing up, she told me it was because they had married outside of the church 1st. After they divorced, she said it was because he had to wait a year to be deemed worthy. ??? I don't know.

FYI -- Their 1st baby didn't come until after their temple marriage.

It sounds very possible that she was preggo. But I also think it's important to remember that they're people just like the rest of us. Even if they did knock boots as horny kids, they really don't owe anyone an explanation...if you find out this crazy stuff is true, then what? I mean, aside from clearing the uncle's name.

I was told and others I know had to wait one year from the time of the civil marriage. I know one exception. The wait was 6 months. The bride was a stake president's daughter and the groom was a new convert. go figure.

I know a couple who was also allowed to marry after a six month period. Same exact scenario; her father was a bigshot SP and the groom was a new convert. They dated for only a couple months before getting engaged and they were all of 19 years old when it happened. Seems to me the church would want to be MORE careful about letting girls like that get married so quickly...if it doesn't work out with one of the SP's children, everyone will hear about it and how will that make the church look??

My husband and I were married in the mid-1980s.


We were worthy, by LDS standards, when we decided to marry.


We lived 10 hours from the nearest temple, and on top of that, neither his family nor mine were members. So to marry in the temple, we would not be able to have any family at the wedding.


We were given two options:


1, We could marry civilly, and then a year later, we could go to the temple.

or

2, We could marry in the temple right then, but our parents would not be able to attend.


Of course, folks at church strongly encouraged us to marry in the temple.


And like TBM fools, we did just that. Which means that our families were unable to attend our wedding.


But to answer the question asked in the opening post, YES you had to wait an entire year after a civil ceremony, before being allowed to marry in the temple -- even if you were completelely "worthy", as deemed by church authorities.


The only way to get around the year's wait was to marry in the temple INSTEAD of having a civil ceremony.

Even if what the uncle saying is true, why would he feel the need to share it with the both of you? It doesn't seem like a kind or necessary thing to do.

A wedding certificate is easy enough to track down. If you feel so concerned about it, you can do that and verify the dates from there.

What your wife's parents are saying about how they met and married is entirely plausible. And honestly, even if they were having sex before marriage, who really cares? The fact that they rushed into marriage would concern me more. How is their marriage right now? That's what really matters.

Summer (and anyone looking to address their own concerns instead of the question I asked), I am not looking for debate about whether it matters. I already stated that it does and why. I don't have the ambition to try to explain why. And regarding my wife's uncle, what he shared with us was very relevant to our conversation and to my wife.

I get sick of people who read part of a post on this site and ignore the original poster's wisdom of not sharing every gritty detail to help people understand the relevance of the question. I asked a question and I would like answers to the question (and I am grateful to those of you who have answered), but it is maddening to post (with the account that I normally use) and having to spend hours addressing why the issue is relevant instead of simply getting answers. If you don't think the question matters, don't answer. From now on, don't assume that the people who posted the question don't the know the situation better than you, and lack the judgment to determine if things are any of their business or if they should leave it alone.

It's ironic that you, obviously having no idea how relevant this is, tell me that it isn't when your answer was completely irrelevant.

On a public message board, you are going to get told things that may not be what you want to hear. Relevant advice or irrelevant advice, it's all free to you for the asking. :p

To answer your question, yes, civil marriage has the same restrictions, no matter the reason you have that civil marriage (due to confessed sin, wanting to have your non-recommend holding relatives at the wedding, or whatever.)

There are certain exceptions. If you live in England or another country where weddings must be open to the public, you may have a civil marriage immediately followed by a temple marriage.

In the old days, if you lived far from a temple, you could have a civil marriage and *then* proceed immediately to the temple. The thinking was that the church didn't want any hanky-panky happening on an overnight trip. A recent presidential candidate took advantage of that rule (the fact that he is Mormon royalty probably didn't hurt.)

And Darth Monson, even as a nevermo I know that much.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/24/2012 02:51AM by summer.

Hey man,

I understand your frustration, but if you only want the answer to a specific question, just ask the question (this is something apparently I've had to learn as DH is very opposite my communication style). If you provide a detailed background story, people will opine. That's how it goes.

Public forum of people with ideas and opinions. Not mind readers.

To the original question, one year waiting is standard (although I've heard of exeptions). As for mom vs uncle's trustworthiness, you may have to use a different barometer.

More current TBM's have knocked boots as horny kids that people probably realize. The only thing that makes any of this a big deal is the church demands conformity to standards that most human beings fall short of. The result is guilt and shame and the system is calculated to bring these on. The guilt and shame bring the subject back into conformity and allows them to be played for free labor and money.

Religions always want to have the license for sex. No sex without the permission of the church. How many young LDS kids go to the temple and get married just so they can have sex? Most of them.

My exhusband's parents were TBMs raised in Utah Valley and married in the 50s. They were married when they were 17, seniors in high school, over Thanksgiving break with only a few people there, and not in the temple. They had a 7-1/2 lb. premature baby 7 months later. They went to the temple later and had their baby sealed to them. FIL is dead now and MIL has one foot in the grave--she's in mid 80s and as far as I know, never fessed up to being preggers when they got married.

MIL used to say things like "It's not surprising (ex-SIL) grew up to be so big (over 400 lb.) since she started out so big for a premie. I looked at her and said, "yes, that makes total sense since she's the only over-7 lb. 2-month premie I've ever heard of." She just didn't get that everyone was mocking her. And funny that her first baby was bigger at birth than all her other kids who were full-term. And several of the full-termers turned out to be morbidly obese also. And, of course, they couldn't marry in the temple because it was a hardship in those days to get from Provo to Salt Lake. But I think she still believes that her kids and grandkids buy it. Even though at grandpa's funeral the grandkids, all adults by then, were laughing about it.

My ex said that the only thing his dad ever told him about sex was "keep your pecker in your pants and if you get a girl pregnant, you're going to marry her." Ex retorted with, "sounds like the voice of experience," and his dad hit him.

It may have been different in the "old days."

My parents were good Mormon kids who eloped in January 1933 and took the train from Pocatello to Salt Lake and got married in the courthouse. In May 1933 they went to the Logan temple and were sealed. Mother graduated from high school that same month. I was born the following September (eight months after they married), weighing 8 1/2 pounds.

Nobody (even my parents) ever commented about that eight-month pregnancy, except once, when my Dad said to me, "You've been a problem since before you were even born!"

I don't know whether the rule about waiting a year came later, or whether a special exception was made for these "nice young kids" so that their baby could be born in the Covenant.

Anyway, here I am, conceived out of wedlock but BIC, the result (according to one family rumor I heard) of a faulty condom.

Thanks everyone for the answers. I appreciate it. And I apologize for getting cranky about people not addressing the question. It was late and I was tired, and I was afraid of the thread getting changed to discuss something that wouldn't be helpful.

I get you - the reason it's important is because of the level of trust the parents are entitled to. It's hard to trust people if you suspect they are lying to you and if you can catch them lying (or prove them truthful) then you have a much better idea of who you are dealing with.

Everyone I've known who had a civil marriage in the U.S. had to wait a year to marry in the temple. This isn't true in other countries and there may be exceptions for Mormon Royalty. But telling you they had to wait a year to marry in the temple, after their civil marriage, is not just believable, it's the norm. A bigger question, if it worries you, is the real date of their civil marriage. I believe that is a matter of public record but I'm not sure how you'd go about finding it. Maybe you could look in newspapers near where they were married for announcements or marriage licenses issued. Also, is your wife certain of her birth date - does she have a copy of her birth certificate? I'd check public records in your situation. Good luck.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/24/2012 03:11PM by CA girl.

It is sad to me that couples have had to lie and continue to do so regarding so-called temple marriage. Two examples:

Back in the early 70's, a paragon of virtue who I grew up with married the Bishop's son in the temple. Their first child was a full term "preemie".

Second, three years ago, the son of a friend of mine got married in the temple after over a year's engagement. Both sets of parents lived out of state and attended the sealing in the city where the engaged couple lived. During the ceremony, it was revealed that the couple had already married civilly. It was explained that they could not wait and rather than sin they got married and kept it a secret from their families for over a year. Since this was in the days of cellphones, with some juggling they were able to do it.

Appearances must be kept.