Is certifying on-line to officiate at a wedding OK?

A couple asked our son-in-law if he would get certified on line to officiate at their wedding. The couple are LDS, but not active, and wanted someone they're close to, to officiate rather than a bishop they don't have a relationship with. Our son-in-law decided to ask his bishop about it, who told him 'That's a no-no", so he respectfully declined the invitation to officiate. The couple's other choices are also active in the church, and because we didn't learn of the explanation why the bishop said no, thought would see if there is a policy, something in the handbook prohibiting an active member to do this; was it possibly the bishop's opinion in that case?

Handbook 1: 3.5.3 would appear to prohibit that.

I haven't been able to access handbook 1 to read that yet. What does it say? I should've thought to mention the wedding is taking place outside at a park- won't be at a church house.

Handbook 1 is restricted. Only stake presidencies, bishoprics and a few auxiliary positions at that level can access it.

It limits officiating to just the leaders.

terrydoxey wrote:I should've thought to mention the wedding is taking place outside at a park- won't be at a church house.

I no longer have access to HB1 either, but it seems to me, that your statement above would make all the difference. If the state you're in sees your brother-in-law as one who can legally perform a marriage, and it won't be performed on church property, then I don't see the problem; but that's just my opinion.

The Handbook allows a bishop, stake president, or mission president to marry a member of his ward, stake, or mission if civil law authorizes the officer to do so. Other Church officers are not authorized to marry members using their ecclesiastical authority.

The laws of the land allow others to perform marriages by virtue of state law, such as justices of the peace, judges, and in some states, anybody. Some states require registration, others do not.

So legally, if the state allows someone to marry a couple civilly, they can perform marriages if authorized by the state, as long as state law is followed regarding marriage licenses, waiting periods, witnesses, registration of the person performing the marriage, if necessary, and anything else required by law.

Mikerowaved wrote:

terrydoxey wrote:I should've thought to mention the wedding is taking place outside at a park- won't be at a church house.

I no longer have access to HB1 either, but it seems to me, that your statement above would make all the difference. If the state you're in sees your brother-in-law as one who can legally perform a marriage, and it won't be performed on church property, then I don't see the problem; but that's just my opinion.

Not to cause a 3 Nephi 11:29 here, but wouldn't this be dangerously close to not sustaining a priesthood authority? Basically circumventing the bishop, who is legally authorized, with a dubious "certification" that is still not legal in many jurisdictions. My wife and I were inactive for a long time and thus not ready for the temple, so prior to our sealing, we had a civil-religious marriage at the wardhouse, presided by the bishop.

We were in Vegas, so Elvis could have married us, but we waited the month that both our bishops wanted and waited. Never in our wildest dreams would we bypass our priesthood authority. But as always, that's just my five cents, two after taxes and tithing.

michael.crook wrote:We were in Vegas, so Elvis could have married us, but we waited the month that both our bishops wanted and waited. Never in our wildest dreams would we bypass our priesthood authority. But as always, that's just my five cents, two after taxes and tithing.

Because the couple mentioned in the original post is LDS, I would always defer to the bishop. And even otherwise, I have enough respect and reverence toward the institution of marriage that I would not marry anyone on a whim, even if it was legal.

It sounds to me as if you had two wonderful bishops involved in your lives, as it should be. This might be an opportunity for the person asked to perform the marriage to introduce the couple to their bishop and start a relationship that might have eternal implications. The son-in-law can always attend the wedding and provide support in that manner.

In answer to the original question. Your friend may get certified on-line by the state and perform the marriage. There is no "rule" that says that once authorized by the state he must obtain ecclesiastical endorsement from the church to perform the marriage. Bishops as part of their calling ALSO have authority to perform a marriage ceremony as authorized by the state. I am sure a current or former Bishop can enlighten us about the paperwork filled out to accommodate this.

Being LDS has nothing to do with who or how they are married it just happens to be one of many facts about the individuals.

Now if they want to be married at the church facilities that would be open up another line of questioning about usage of church facilities and who would make those decisions.

will227457 wrote:Your friend may get certified on-line by the state and perform the marriage. There is no "rule" that says that once authorized by the state he must obtain ecclesiastical endorsement from the church to perform the marriage.

It depends on the state. Some states do not require any certification or ecclesiastical endorsement at all. Some states require that you register a certificate of authority with the county clerk before you are authorized by the state to perform marriages. Check your local state law.

You are correct that once authorized by the state, most do not require the obtaining of an ecclesiastical endorsement. Bishops, on the other hand, have guidelines in the Handbook that may limit their authorization from the Church to marry members.

So, if they are are nonmembers, getting married elsewhere, any member may officiate a civil ceremony, as long as it's ok by the state, correct? Do we have a definitive answer?

racevws wrote:So, if they are are nonmembers, getting married elsewhere, any member may officiate a civil ceremony, as long as it's ok by the state, correct? Do we have a definitive answer?

State law determines who may perform the ceremony. Those marriages are performed by civil authority. Anyone may perform a marriage using civil authority if allowed to do so under state law.

In some states, anyone can marry any couple, as long as the couple has a valid marriage license. In other states, there is a fancy and detailed registration process for anyone who will perform a marriage. Most states allow a judge or justice of the peace to perform civil marriages using civil authority without registering. State laws vary.

When a wedding will be performed by ecclesiastical authority, the Church imposes restrictions on who may perform the marriage. And when a member is being married, the Church imposes additional restrictions on whom the bishop (or other Church officer) may marry. Ecclesiastical authority is controlled by a Church and is in addition to the required civil authority.

racevws wrote:Do we have a definitive answer?

This is a user-to-user forum. No one here can give a definitive answer.

I agree this is just a forum. But opinions are valuable.

I agree with the concept that marriage is a sacred institution. Where more is given more is expected.

We should not just marry people on a whim. If they are LDS then we should show them the methods the church offers that lead them towards the temple. That's why we allow civil marriages so that it has direction towards the covenant path.

If someone just grabs a marriage ordination certificate online, they are bypassing the eternal principles that we value. In addition one might consider the temple questions.

They Do you support or promote practices contrary to the church. Getting a certificate that shows you are an ordained minister in my opinion promotes and supports practices that are contrary to our doctrine. Our doctrine states marriage should be done through the priesthood even if it is civil. Food for thought brothers and sisters. I would not take getting an online marriage certificate so lightly. There are eternal ramifications. When you answer your questions at your next temple interview you will probably feel funny saying yes to that question. If you don't well nothing I can do about it.

Opinions are just that. Gratefully, local leaders like the Bishop, are given stewardship and authority by the Handbook to make local decisions, where specific policies do not exist.

The topic is being confused. The church has no bearing on civil marriage. They can dictate who can civilly marry on their premise. A Bishop, Stake President is authorized by the church to marry on church grounds. They are technically the only ones with a calling that fits the legal requirement within the church. However, to say that there is some spiritual authority to do so is false. This is a civil marriage, not a temple marriage. Legally, outside of church property and depending on state law, anyone who is “ordained” can perform a wedding. The goal is not exclusion in the church. There is a legal precedent for the idea of civil marriage being placed in the hands of Bishop and Stake Presidents but there is not spiritual reason behind it. It isn’t “accepted or denied” legal authority if it is not performed by a Bishop or Stake President. It is merely the church’s way of complying with laws of the land. A “normal” member can officiate if they are a complying with state law which usually states that they must be 18 and a registered officiant. This can mean an online class or a job like a judge. If you think that having a civil marriage done by a bishop somehow is “more worthy” of a marriage you are mistaken.