Getting Married before the ceremony (living together)

[boxoman]

My Fiance and I have been living together for 3 months now. We are both Christian, and we know that this is not right, although due to the circumstances, it would be impossible to live apart. Now before you go into saying that there are always circumstances, and that this does not make it right, we already know that. We live 1000 miles from any family, I am starting my own business, my Fiance has been supporting me, and I would not be able to afford to live anywhere, and trying to do so would cause a lot of heart ship (once again, not an excuse, just giving some background).

We have been engaged for 15 months now, and the wedding is set for July of 2009 because of everything going on and we didn't have time to plan before this. This leads to my question. We have decided that we would like to take a step in the right direction and we would like to get married now instead of later. (Ending a big part of sin in both our lives). The problem is that we have already invested a lot of time and money planning the wedding in July, so at this point, it is not possible to move the wedding date. What we were thinking of doing is getting married with a pastor right now, but then having our ceremony in July when it is planned.

Now to complicate things: If we had a small wedding now, none of our family would probably be able to be there, because we live about 1000 miles away, and they would probably want us to wait anyway since they have money invested in the wedding as well and would like it to be more official. (both of our parents are putting in a lot of money to make this a great wedding). We just really want to get married in the eyes of God.

One of our ideas was to get married locally and then basically not tell anyone at least until after the wedding in July. This way, we could be officially married in the eyes of the state and God, but still have the wedding and not alienate our families who have invested time and money into the wedding and who do not necessarily feel the way we do about sin and would want us to wait.

So there you go, put that in your mouth and chew it I am open to any HELPFUL comments or suggestions. Especially if you have been in the same situation, or if you have some experience that may help us make our decision. If you are going to bash me for the mistakes I made, or being a bad christian, then please don't post (and also take a deep look at yourself

Thanks

 

[heather]

I had a friend that decided to move to Arizona to be close to her boyfriend. Three weeks later, they were married but didn't tell anyone (not even parents) until 9 months later (and no, she wasn't pregnant).

I don't think that there would be anything wrong with getting married before the ceremony. If God has put this guilt on your heart, then it's what you should do. You may find that your pastor still wants you to go through pre-marital counseling. It's a good idea and will help you learn a little more about yourself. Since there's no family around, the fact that they announce marriage licenses in the paper shouldn't be an issue. It could be your little secret. Something that only you 2 share. Enjoy a small, romantic ceremony and do it the way you want. If you want to get married comfortably (jeans, t-shirts,whatever), go ahead. She'll get her big dream wedding in 8 months. Once you're married, go away to a nice bed & breakfast for the weekend. I assume you've already talked about a honeymoon location for the July wedding. That can be the big "Ahhh" trip.

You can privately celebrate your private ceremony anniversary with a nice dinner out, and then smile when you get anniversary cards in July 2010.

Good luck with your decision.

I say, "Go for it!"

 

[Joshua]

You do know that living together doesn't mean pre-marital sex or even having to sleep in the same bed. You can always sleep on the couch. If this is really about pre-marital sex and not just living under the same roof, then I would suggest showing some restraint. Two people can live together without it being sin.

Now if you want to get married so you can continue to have sex without the guilt...thats not, in my opinion, the best answer.

I would think real hard about getting married without telling your families. There will no doubt be some hurt feelings. The parents of the bride will be crushed as will probably the grooms parents. They want to be there on what should be the second most important day of your lives. The first being your acceptance of Christ as your Lord and Savior.

If you do go through with the early marriage, don't do it in secret. Your families love you enough to invest time and money into the start of your marriage, don't lie to them.

A last note...PRAY, PRAY, PRAY for God to lead you to the right decision. And go to your pastor for pre-marital counseling...NOW, and be completely honest with him. He can help.

 

[PrimeRoot]

Good News

...we would like to get married now instead of later.
(Ending a big part of sin in both our lives)...

... We just really want to get married in the eyes of God...

First some background info:

Assuming the woman is a virgin,

and the man...
has never divorced a woman, (Matt 19:9)
can "afford" it, (Ex 21:10)
is not a king, (Deut 17:17) (#2 wife+)
is not a church leader, ( 1Tim 3, and Titus 1:6) (#2 wife+)
and it isnt breaking any civil laws, (Heb 13:17),

then you can marry.( Matt 19:4-6 - Jesus)


So, heres the good news, I think.

Notice that when Jesus said
"cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh",
when he quoted Gen 2:24,
and called it "What God hath joined".

Notice also that Paul quoted Gen 2:24,
and explicitly clarified that the joining occurs
when you simply have sex. (1 Cor 6:16)

So... save your time and money,
save your in-laws and folks and friends the bother:

If you aren't virgin any more
you are marrried already.

And my heads-up is free, if you remember this:

Dont call "What God hath joined"
a sin, even if you were disqualified
before you met this person.

Adultery is always sin. ( John 8:11)
If so separate, and sin no more.

Marriage is never sin. ( Matt 19:6 )
And ends only at death. (Rom 7:2, 1Cor 7:39)

So... now about a very similar situation,
but I need to start another topic for that.
Lord willing, perhaps tommorrow.

 

[follower of Christ]

has never divorced
a woman, (Matt 19:9)

Fallacious.
Christ gave EXCEPTION whereby remarriage is no issue at all for the divorced....read the WHOLE bible, not just a few verses...such as the following;

And ends only at death. (Rom 7:2, 1Cor 7:39)

This is only PART of the relevant data, Im afraid.
Divorce ENDS marriage as Deut 24 proves....and if it didnt then Christ and Paul would have been making a big deal out of nothing, now, wouldnt they have.... ;)

"Bound by Law" (Romans 7, 1 Cor 7:39)



.

 

[follower of Christ]

We just really want to get married in the eyes of God.

....just do it.
Stop looking for reasons not to and just do it if you know thats the direction you are going to go in.
your plan to marry now and then have the ceremony later sounds great....thats exactly what the wife and I did and it worked out fine.

 

[PrimeRoot]

Re: ... (living together)

FC, greetings. Merry Christmas !

...Christ gave EXCEPTION whereby remarriage is no issue at all for the divorced...

The exception you cite is very specific. ..."except it be for [your wife's] fornication". The rest he calls adulterers. (Matt 19:9). In other words, if I divorce an innocent woman, I may take no other wife. Tho if she dies, that seems to end the obligation.

Another possiblity is if the man was divorced by his wife. But in that case he hasn't divorced anyone. In any case I expect the READER would accept the WHOLE of scripture, especially when I gave the specific reference to it.

So yes, if your former partner was 'unfaithful', divorce could hardly be seen as a sin, and it seems Christ has not limited a man who marries another in that case.

...Divorce ENDS marriage as Deut 24 proves....and if it didnt then Christ and Paul would have been making a big deal out of nothing...

Our Master said ..."from the beginning it was not so", as a matter of fact. Paul also was declaring a fact. Death ends the obligation. Who else do you think Paul could be addressing in Rom 7:2 and 1Cor 7:39 ?

Deut 24 provides a woman who is innocent of adultery to marry another AFTER she is foced out of a marriage, and also provides her with a means of doing business in the interim. (She no longer needed her husband's permission to buy and sell if she had a bill of divorce.) Deut 24 does not 'prove' that the marriage bond was severed to my satisfaction, especially after reading Paul's very clear statements. ..."if the husband be dead, she is loosed".

I realize each has to conclude for themselves. Its fairly conclusive that non-virgins are married ones, which was my chief point: Hire the pastor for your funerals instead.

Peace.

Thanks again to the hosts of this forum.

 

[Caroline H]

Re: Good News

...we would like to get married now instead of later.
(Ending a big part of sin in both our lives)...

... We just really want to get married in the eyes of God...

First some background info:

Assuming the woman is a virgin,

and the man...
has never divorced a woman, (Matt 19:9)
can "afford" it, (Ex 21:10)
is not a king, (Deut 17:17) (#2 wife+)
is not a church leader, ( 1Tim 3, and Titus 1:6) (#2 wife+)
and it isnt breaking any civil laws, (Heb 13:17),

then you can marry.( Matt 19:4-6 - Jesus)


So, heres the good news, I think.

Notice that when Jesus said
"cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh",
when he quoted Gen 2:24,
and called it "What God hath joined".

Notice also that Paul quoted Gen 2:24,
and explicitly clarified that the joining occurs
when you simply have sex. (1 Cor 6:16)

So... save your time and money,
save your in-laws and folks and friends the bother:

If you aren't virgin any more
you are marrried already.

And my heads-up is free, if you remember this:

Dont call "What God hath joined"
a sin, even if you were disqualified
before you met this person.

Adultery is always sin. ( John 8:11)
If so separate, and sin no more.

Marriage is never sin. ( Matt 19:6 )
And ends only at death. (Rom 7:2, 1Cor 7:39)

So... now about a very similar situation,
but I need to start another topic for that.
Lord willing, perhaps tommorrow.

Sex is not marriage, and marriage is not just sex. It takes both together to constitute a marriage. If you marry someone but never have sex with them, then you can anul the marriage as though there never were one. It is simply a convenient way to excuse your conscience to say that sex is marriage. There is a topic on this in Christian Talk & Advice, viewtopic.php?f=18&p=415005#p415005

 

[PrimeRoot]

Long Before Judaism

Greetings Caroline,

Sex is not marriage... It is simply a convenient way to excuse your conscience to say that sex is marriage...

Im afraid the supposition about my conscience is beyond the facts. I havent had sex for 12 years, and my conclusions were reached when studying scripture, not the neighbor lady. Indeed, I would not have engaged my "former partner" if I knew the facts of scripture, since I now realize she was another man's woman, inspite of her "single" civil status.

So... what do you think Paul meant when he quoted Genesis 2:24 in his assessment of the non-virgin in 1Corinthians 6:16, if sex does not result in joining ?

1Corinthians 6:16[quote:18nlao7q]What?
know ye not that he which is joined
[sexually] is one body?
for two, saith he,
shall be one flesh.

[/quote:18nlao7q]

Was Adam joined?
Was the raped Tamar joined?

from 2 Samuel 13[quote:18nlao7q]this evil in sending me away is greater
than the other that thou didst unto me.

[/quote:18nlao7q]
Thanks CM. Cheers.

 

[follower of Christ]

Re: ... (living together)

The exception you cite is very specific. ..."except it be for [your wife's] fornication". The rest he calls adulterers. (Matt 19:9). In other words, if I divorce an innocent woman, I may take no other wife. Tho if she dies, that seems to end the obligation.[/qutoe]
Christs exeptions were given under VERY specific circumstances, friend...and they arent the entirely scope of data we have from scripture on the matter. We dont just cherry pick out a couple verses and think we understand the WHOLE truth of the matter.

Another possiblity is if the man was divorced by his wife. But in that case he hasn't divorced anyone. In any case I expect the READER would accept the WHOLE of scripture, especially when I gave the specific reference to it.

So you gave reference to ONE verse...so what ?
There are MANY hellspawned heresies that can do just the same...quote ONE or TWO verses that arent presenting the WHOLE scope of truth in any given matter.
"Hyper" Calvinism can literally show that GOD is responsible for EVERY sin man ever commits and believe me they can argue the issue MUCH better than you can this MDR thing....yet we KNOW God isnt making men rape children now, dont we....yet THAT is what these folks claim and can really do a good job supporting with scripture.



[quote:2hdgd653]
So yes, if your former partner was 'unfaithful', divorce could hardly be seen as a sin, and it seems Christ has not limited a man who marries another in that case.

Christ hasnt limited anything. He simply explained that when men cast out their innocent wives to marry someone else that they sin against her and they drag others into their sin as well.

Our Master said ..."from the beginning it was not so", as a matter of fact. Paul also was declaring a fact. Death ends the obligation. Who else do you think Paul could be addressing in Rom 7:2 and 1Cor 7:39 ?

Our Master asked about 'for EVERY cause' divorce, poster...THAT is the context of His statements....precisely what the Jews were doing....divorcing for EVERY sort of godless reason.
Of course divorce wasnt 'from the beginning' before men decided to start beating the hell out of their wives and casting them out into the streets.

Death ends the law of the husband for sure....so does divorce or Moses was a liar.
Course you handle that little problem by claiming its not to your 'satisfaction' but again it doesnt matter if you reject it...GODS prophet Moses PROVES it...
Jesus NEVER changed what divorce does...He simply told them that they DID sin when they cast her out 'for EVERY Cause' to marry another....precisely what they were doing as evidenced by Herod and Herodias who did just that.

you are taking ONE verse and making doctrine out of it....not a good idea at all.

As for Romans 7 and 1 Cor 7...

The wife is bound by law until the husband is dead
(Romans 7:2-3, 1 Cor. 7:39)
By WmTipton

Assertions/Conclusions of this article

In this article we will show that the two passages in question speak of the ‘law of the husband’ and that even though these verses say that this law is until death, that is is not an unconditional law that cannot be ended before the death of the spouse. The law of the husband is intended to be until the death of one of the spouses, as God created it from the very first marriage, Adam and Eve, but it has never been without condition.

Supporting Evidence
In Romans Paul was speaking to "those who know the law" (Romans 7:1)

The law reigned over a man all his days. Paul uses this analogy of marriage, the wife being bound to her husband all his days, to represent that it was the same.
What Paul didn’t state, and those knowing the law would know this, is that there was provision in the law for a husband to put away his wife while he was alive . (Deut 24:1-4 )
This shows conclusively that Paul was not laying out the whole scope of rules on marriage in Romans 7 but was using one aspect of it to explain our relationship to the law and to the new covenant.

This idea is presented again in 1 Corinthians 7:39. The wife is bound to the husband until his death.
We must ask ourselves one question here. ‘What law’ bound this woman to her husband for life?
Was it the Mosaic law? How then could any wife have been bound at all to her husband from Eve until the Law ?
It is cemented that it is not the Mosiac law when we find no actual law making this commandment.

So, is Paul lying when he says she is ‘bound by law’ to him until he is dead? By no means.
We are left with one conclusion. That this ‘law’ is an unwritten law of marriage and had to be put into place in the garden with Adam and Eve. It was set into place as a parameter to be accepted in all marriages from thence forth.

Now, we ask ourselves, why, if this law is for life, did Moses ever permit it to end while the former spouse lived?
We ask ourselves about the wife in Exodus 21:7-11 who was permitted to walk out on her marriage if her husband denied her the basics of marriage, food, clothing and conjugal duty.
Why, if this law that existed from the beginning, was Moses so determined to undermine its supposed finality by ever allowing men or women to end it this side of death? Was Moses a rogue prophet who defied Gods will in the matter and even added divorce proceedings to His law? Not at all.

Moses understood Gods intent, that marriage is for life, but Moses also knew Gods heart and that God wanted mercy over sacrifice and he knew the hearts of evil, hardhearted men who would treat their wives horribly as they wished.
And so Moses understood that this ‘law’ was not unconditional.
If it were unconditional, then it was that way in the beginning and Moses would make himself a heretic by ever going against it.

So we see that when Paul gives his words in 1 Corinthians 7:39, that this is not the whole picture. This ‘law’ that Jesus presents as being ‘from the beginning’ was never meant to be unconditional. Jesus’ very words ‘except for’ in Matthew 19 show conclusively that even He does not see it as being without condition.

Paul was asked some questions by the Corinthians as is made apparent in the beginning of chapter 7;

[quote:2hdgd653]1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the matters about which you wroteâ€Â

These believers had asked him some weighty questions about marriage, fornication, virgins, etc, to which he responded with what is written in this chapter.
They clearly had pondered the right of the believer to put away an unbeliever, to which Paul said “no, if the unbeliever is pleased along with the believer, the do not put them away, you might be the catalyst in their salvationâ€Â.
Paul is showing these believers who think they can just walk away from marriage that no, they cannot because it is for life.
But Pauls words also show condition. What if this unbeliever isn’t ‘pleased’ along with the believer, but is abusive, hateful, adulterating...then what does Pauls condition show?

Please see this page for more on that issue
Aslo see THIS PAGE that shows conclusively that man CAN indeed 'put asunder' a marriage, thus the 'law of the husband" ("bound by law") is quite conditional.

When you’ve finished there, I believe you will see that there is condition in Pauls words. A condition that is perfectly harmonized with the heart of other scriptures such as Exodus 21 where the wife can leave over nonsupport, Jeremiah 3:8 where even God the Father issued a bill of divorce for harlotry, and Matthew 19 where Jesus shows that the same harlotry is just cause for ending this marriage.

Another point with Romans 7:1-4 or so is that at no time does this passage show that there was ever any divorce as permitted by Mosaic law. If we take it 'as written' it shows that this woman has only left her husband and gone to join with another. Without a divorce as presented by the law Paul speaks of, without the breaking of that marriage covenant, then of course she would be called an adulteress by joining herself to some man not her husband.

Pauls words in Romans 7 and 1 Corinthians 7 are true. They are just harmonized with the whole of Gods word. If we fail to harmonize correctly, then we end up with absurd teachings such as ones that say that we “cannot sin†because the literal reading of 1 John 3:9 would seem to show as much when taken alone and not properly harmonized with the whole.
Without ALL of the facts we can end up drawing very wrong conclusions from very CLEAR scripures, such as presented here:
The REST of the story...

We hope that this has been helpful in showing you the truth, dear reader, and how to harmonize the whole of Gods word so that you understand the whole truth.[/quote:2hdgd653]

Deut 24 provides a woman who is innocent of adultery to marry another AFTER she is foced out of a marriage, and also provides her with a means of doing business in the interim. (She no longer needed her husband's permission to buy and sell if she had a bill of divorce.) Deut 24 does not 'prove' that the marriage bond was severed to my satisfaction, especially after reading Paul's very clear statements. ..."if the husband be dead, she is loosed".

[/quote:2hdgd653]
Im not really concerned about your 'satisfaction', poster.
MOSES, Gods CHOSEN prophet, said that this DIVORCED woman COULD go and be another mans wife and once she did so she could NEVER be the first mans wife again....THAT is GODS word....so your views are irrelevant in the matter.
Paul was right...after death she IS loosed....and if she is divorced she has no husband.
1 Cor 7:10-11 shows that this woman is UNMARRIED when she leaves her marriage.
Paul says that man CAN 'put asunder' his marriage just by leaving it.
So apparently you have missed some details.

READERS SEE->Click->>> "Remain Unmarried or reconcile†vs "not in bondage"
READERS SEE->Click->>> "Let not man Put Asunder" vs "let the unbeliever depart"
READERS SEE->Click->>> Does the bible permit putting away a spouse for abuse?
READERS SEE->Click->>> 1 Corinthians 7 Study
READERS SEE->Click->>> Unmarried†- 1 Corinthians 7

 

[follower of Christ]

So... what do you think Paul meant when he quoted Genesis 2:24 in his assessment of the non-virgin in 1Corinthians 6:16, if sex does not result in joining ?

What it means is the 'one flesh' is sex....not any bond that binds as some fallaciously assert.
Paul uses the phrase because when a man is with a woman sexually they have mingled their flesh...that doesnt mean that they are married, otherwise the sin of fornication would be impossible....which is EXACTLY what that passage is about.

What is ''one flesh'' and what is it that God joins together?
By WmTipton

Assertions/Conclusions of this article

To show that ''one flesh'' is sexual relations between a man and a woman and not some 'bond' that cannot be broken as asserted by a few.

Supporting Evidence

To prove this we see that a husband and wife will become ''one flesh''..

[quote:3vu1638n]Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Eph 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

Eph 5:31 "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."

We see that a husband and wife will be ''one flesh''.
to further understand what this ''one flesh'' is lets look to something outside the marriage union....

Do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her?
For "the two," He says, "shall become one flesh."
(1Co 6:16-)

Paul shows that even having sex with a harlot, one to whom we arent married, obviously, is the same as ''one flesh'' in marriage.
Paul even quotes God/Jesus when he states..."For "the two," He says, "shall become one flesh".

A man is also 'one flesh' or 'one body' with a harlot he is with (1 Cor 6:16) showing that 'one flesh' is not exclusive to the marriage union. So we see that ''one flesh'' is merely the sexual union between a man and a woman, married or not.
If anyone other than Jesus would understand what 'one flesh' was, it would be Moses. The man wrote the law, we can rest assured that he understood Gods intent from the beginning. That Moses were ever permitted to allow divorce/remarriage (as proven in Deut 24:1-4) shows absolutely that this perpetual 'one flesh' bond is nothing more than unscriptural nonsense. Moses had permitted a man to put away a wife just because she found no 'favor in his eyes''. She was permitted to REmarry.
*IF* 'one flesh' from the beginning were UNbreakable, then so it would be in Moses day, Moses would have KNOWN that if it were the case, and ongoing adultery would have been the crime of this woman put away and REmarried, as she most likely would have been.

Are we naive enough to think that Moses was sentencing an innocent woman to hell by permitting her to REmarry ?
All he had to have done *IF* one flesh were perpetual was tell the INNOCENT they couldnt remarry so as to not be in 'adultery' as some suppose today.
But he didnt.

Because Moses understood that this one flesh is not continued perpetually when a divorce has happened.
If the divorce is scriptural, then the bond is broken, ended....no adultery is committed when one REmarries.
Just as in Jesus exception. He narrowed the allowance by showing that a legitimate breach of covenant must be present, but He did not change the definition of divorce, nor did HE disallow remarriage in the case where fornication has happened. Adultery is committed now when a spouse is put away for any reason short of legitimate breach of covenant, and we then remarry.

Lets look at Joseph and Mary now.
Firstly we know that Jesus was not illegitimate. He was born to two lawfully married people. The Jews accepted this and called Joseph Jesus' father (many not knowing any different).

*IF* marriage was not valid without consummation....the two being ''one flesh'' as it were, then Joseph and Mary wouldnt be ''married'' and Jesus would have been illegitimate....without a lawful earthly father.

Joseph had not yet been with Mary before Jesus was born, yet WAS said to be her ''husband'' and she his ''wife'' or espoused (betrothed) wife. He was going to put Mary away when he found her with child, showing that she was indeed his ''lawful'' wife....if she werent his wife he could have just left her obviously.

What bound Joseph to Mary was not sex, as is blindingly apparent, since they had had no sexual union at that point, but what DID bind them was they were joined in matrimony, Gods holy marital covenant.

So when we look at ''one flesh'', we can clearly see that because of 1 Cor. 6:16 that ''one flesh'' is sexual relations between a man and a woman, married or not.
And since we know that we arent married to the harlot just because we make ourselves ''one flesh'' with her, that this ''one flesh'' is NOT any tie that is unbreakable.

There is no such thing as breaking the ''one flesh'' union, otherwise 1 Cor. 6:16 would show that every person who has had sex with someone they werent married to is permanently ''one flesh'' with them for life...and we know that isnt the case based on the context of 1 Cor. 6.

Conclusions:''one flesh'' is sex, plain and simple.... as proven by 1 Corinthians 6:16Sex is not the tie that binds, the covenant is...as proven by Joseph and Mary.What binds a man and woman for life is the marriage covenant..... which we know is a conditional covenant, for Jesus has said ''except''.

*IF* ‘’one flesh’’ is what makes a man and wife ‘’married’’ (as some see it), then Joseph and Mary were NOT married and our Lord was born illegitimate.
Proof that is not the case is in Luke 3:23, Luke 4:24, John 1:45, John 6:42. Jesus WAS Josephs ‘’son’’ as far as being born into a LAWFUL, binding marriage covenant.

Below is a quote from John Gill concerning his own views of 1 Corinthians 6:16.
Commentators can help us shed light on a verse, but never take their words as gospel truth, they are fallible men like you and me.

1Co 6:16 -
What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot,
.... Not in marriage, but in carnal copulation, and unclean embraces, is one body with her

for two
("saith he", Adam, or Moses, or God, or the Scripture, or as R. Sol. Jarchi says, the Holy Spirit, Gen_2:24)

shall be one flesh;
what is originally said of copulation in lawful marriage, in which man and wife, legally coupled together, become one flesh, is applied to the unlawful copulation of a man with an harlot, by which act they also become one body, one flesh; and which is made use of by the apostle, to deter the members of Christ from the commission of this sin, which makes a member of Christ one body and flesh with an harlot, than which nothing is more monstrous and detestable.
The apostle here directs to the true sense of the phrase in Genesis, "and they shall be one flesh"; that is, man and wife shall only have carnal knowledge of, and copulation with each other.
-J. Gill

[/quote:3vu1638n]

 

[Jasmin]

That is a great idea. We should have done that. I still feel guilty for premarital sex and I have been married for 8 months. I don't think you have to tell anyone if you don't want to. I know if I were in your situation and we got married "again" then my folks and his folks would spoil the ceremony for us by telling people etc. Congrats on your engagement! :D