Solemnizing Mormon Marriage in England, 1934

A discussion following a recent post mentioned the fact that Latter-day Saint officials had not been permitted to perform legal marriages in England until well into the 20th century. They had long performed wedding services for Church members who wished to make vows in their own chapels with their own faith members present, but those services had no force in the eyes of the British government – English Saints still had to go before a civil officer or a minister of another church with legal authority in order to establish a legally binding marriage.

That began to change late in 1934, when the Latter-day Saint chapel at Manchester was authorized as a place where legal marriage ceremonies could be performed. Below is the announcement in the Millennial Star alerting the Saints to that giant leap forward in Church recognition.

For American readers who may not be aware of differences in English and American law, legally binding marriages cannot be performed today in the temples in England not because the Church isn’t somehow recognized as a real church, but because English law requires that legal weddings be open to the public, presumably so that anyone with knowledge of a legal impediment to the marriage can be present and speak. Since temples are not open to the public, marriages recognized by the State cannot be performed there. Sealing ceremonies, of course, do not fall under State control and are conducted as they are in any other temple where the participants acknowledge the validity of the sealing authority.

Permission Granted for Solemnizing Marriages

Church members throughout the mission will be pleased to know that permission has been at last granted for the solemnizing of marriages in a Latter-day Saint chapel in England. An application for such privilege in behalf of the Manchester chapel was honoured by the Superintendent Registrar of the Manchester Parish, and a certificate of registry issued on October 22nd. In the Manchester chapel may now be performed a legal and binding marriage ceremony by anyone who is duly empowered and delegated to do so by the president of the British Mission.

The Manchester chapel is the first of the church-owned buildings in the British Mission to be granted a certificate of this kind. Heretofore, although a couple might be married by the mission president or by another to whom was delegated the authority to perform the Church ceremony, it was required by law that an additional ceremony be solemnized by a civil authority. With the granting of the certificate of registry, however, a ceremony performed in the Manchester chapel, under the direction of the mission president, will suffice to make a marriage legal.

Although the fact that the church may now solemnize marriages in England is itself worthy of more than passing comment, a deeper significance attaches to the granting of the privilege. For it is indicative that the prejudice and discriminations which have confronted the Church one very side to delay and postpone the time when it might take its true place in the communities of the British Isles, are fast giving way to a wholesome respect and sincere appreciation for the Church and its work. In the place of misunderstanding has come the realization that the Church of Christ of Latter-day Saints deserves acknowledgment as a fully accredited institution, denied none of the privileges, powers, and prerogatives that are granted by law or custom to institutions of a similar nature.

The registration of the Manchester chapel is just a beginning. It is to be expected that the remainder of the church-owned chapels of the British mission will soon be accorded the same privilege, which should result in more firmly establishing them as integral parts of the communities in which they stand, and, thus established, in giving them greater opportunity to foster the activities of the Church and to spread the Message that has the power to enrich every life.

–(Millennial Star, 15 November 1934, 729-730)

The photograph is the chapel in Manchester used at this era.

Cite Keepa

Regrettably, meanies have stolen content from Keepa in the past! I'm confident you will choose honesty and cite this page like this:

MLA: Parshall, Ardis E. "Solemnizing Mormon Marriage in England, 1934." Keepapitchin.org, 19 Jul 2016, https://keepapitchinin.org/2016/07/19/solemnizing-mormon-marriage-in-england-1934/.

APA: Parshall, A. (2016, Jul 19). Solemnizing Mormon Marriage in England, 1934. Keepapitchinin.org. https://keepapitchinin.org/2016/07/19/solemnizing-mormon-marriage-in-england-1934/

HTML: <a target="_new" href="https://keepapitchinin.org/2016/07/19/solemnizing-mormon-marriage-in-england-1934/">Solemnizing Mormon Marriage in England, 1934</a>

5 thoughts on “Solemnizing Mormon Marriage in England, 1934”

  1. I knew of several other countries that require a civil marriage first then you can do a sealing via the temple but didn’t know that about England. Thanks for the history lesson.

  2. It’s interesting that the authorization seems tied to the location rather than to the identity of the person performing the ceremony. Now that the authorization was granted, could any branch president within the British Mission have come to Manchester and performed a wedding there? And, if the President of the Manchester Branch (or Conference) were to attempt to perform a wedding somewhere else–in a nearby woods, for instance–would that wedding not have been effective?

  3. The wedding in the woods would not have been recognized by law (even today venues have to be licensed for a wedding performed there to be valid — no clifftop ceremonies or wooded vales). Since LDS branch presidents needed permission from the mission president for each ceremony they performed, I suppose any branch president could seek that permission, and I don’t know why the state wouldn’t have honored it.

  4. As I recall, at least a few (if not all four) of the countries in my mission (Central America — Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, back in 1972-74) required this as well, that is, there had to be a civil marriage. This wasn’t always easy to accomplish, either — the first baptisms I had in my mission were an unmarried couple living in San Pedro Sula, Honduras (where I was serving); they (obviously) had to get married before we could baptize them, and my companion and I had to travel (~6 hr bus ride) to the country’s capital (Tegucigalpa) in order to get the husband’s birth certificate (the wife already had hers).

  5. Conversely, in Scotland where a different legal system operates, it is the celebrant and not the location who is licensed to perform marriage ceremonies. Bishops and branch presidents apply for and receive permission to do so from the relevant government department.

Comments are closed.