Ruth Vose Sayers

1869 Affidavit - “married or Sealed”

Ruth Vose’s 1869 affidavit makes no distinction between sealing and marriage, but the verbiage seems like it was standardized across the 1869 affidavits. Those affidavits used the same verbiage “married or Sealed” whether the individual was a single woman or an already married one (i.e., polyandrous). The affidavit (much like the other affidavits from 1869) reads (emphasis added):

Be it remembered that on this first day of May, A.D. 1869, personally appeared before me, Elias Smith, Probate Judge for Said County, Ruth Vose Sayers who was by me Sworn in due form of law and upon her oath Saith that on [blank] day of February A.D. 1843 at the City of Nauvoo County of Hancock, State of Illinois, She was married or Sealed to Joseph Smith President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, by Hyrum Smith, Presiding Patriarch of Said Church, according to the laws of the Same, regulating Marriage; in the presence of Ruth V. Sayers; Subscribed and sworn by the said Ruth V. Sayers, the day and year first above written; E. Smith; Probate Judge

Affidavits book 1 | Affidavits book 4

More context on and other examples of the affidavits here.

Hales notes: “However the affidavit states that the sealing was performed by Hyrum Smith, which is unlikely because Hyrum did not accept plural marriage until May of that year.”

Andrew Jenson Papers - “should be sealed … for eternity”

Andrew Jenson [ca. 1871–1942] apparently had some documentation regarding Ruth Vose’s relationship and sealing:

Sister Ruth/ Mrs. Sayers was married in her youth to Mr. Edward Sayers, a thoroughly practical horticulturist and florist, and though he was not a member of the Church, yet he willingly joined his fortune with her and they reached Nauvoo together some time in the year 1841;

While there the strongest affection sprang up between the Prophet Joseph and Mr. Sayers. The latter not attaching much importance to the/ theory of a future life insisted that his wife Ruth/ should be sealed to the Prophet for eternity, as he himself should only claim [page2—the first 3 lines of which are written over illegible erasures] her in this life. She was/ accordingly the sealed to the Prophet in Emma Smith’s presence and thus were became numbered among the Prophets plural wives. She however though she/ continued to live with Mr. Sayers / remained with her husband until his death.

From Andrew Jenson Papers [ca. 1871–1942], LDS Archives as cited by Hales. “It appears that the documents in these folders were used to compile Jenson’s 1887 Historical Record article on plural marriage.

Dan Vogel has noted that in this documentation it was apparently Edward Sayers who suggested the eternity sealing, so caution should be taken in extrapolating this to all the other polyandrous marriages.

Zina Huntington

John W. Wight, an Elder of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, interviewed Zina Huntington Jacobs Smith Young at her home in Utah, October 1, 1898, and published it in the saints herald (see complete transcript).

… He married me. The Lord told him to take me and he did so.

Q. I believe you claim your brother officiated at the marriage?

A. He did at the first. When Brigham Young returned from England, he repeated the ceremony for time and eternity. …

Q. Then it is a fact, Mrs. Young, is it not, that you married Mr. Smith at the same time you were married to Mr. Jacobs?

A. What right have you to ask me such questions? I was sealed to Joseph Smith for eternity.

Q. Mrs. Young, you claim, I believe, that you were not married to him for time?

A. For eternity. I was married to Mr. Jacobs, but the marriage was unhappy, and we parted. …

Q. Do you know, Mrs. Young, that what you did in these matters was contrary to law?

A. There was no law for polygamy.

Q. Are you aware of the fact that at that time, that is, prior to the death of Joseph Smith, the law of Illinois was against the taking of more than one wife?

A. I do not know. …

Q. Who was present at the time that Joseph taught you the doctrine of sealing besides yourself and Joseph?

A. My brother Dimick.

Q. Were you sealed to Joseph on the occasion of this visit?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. It is a fact then, Mrs. Young, that Joseph was not married to you only in the sense of being sealed for eternity?

A. As his wife for time and eternity.

Q. Mrs. Young, you have answered that question in two ways; for time, and for time and eternity.

A. I meant for eternity.

  • She does not advance any objection to the interviewer calling her association with Joseph a “marriage.”
  • Brigham Young repeated the ceremony for “time and eternity.” (presumably after Joseph Smith’s death)
  • She claims she was “sealed for eternity”, then “his wife for time and eternity” and then clarified “I meant for eternity.”

Todd Compton views this evidence as ambiguous (in In Sacred Loneliness):

Some interpreters place great weight on these statements [referring to above interview], as showing that Zina’s marriage was “spiritual” only. But the interview is so contradictory on this issue, as the elderly Zina sounds defensive and confused while answering an RLDS judge’s harsh questions, that it cannot be used as solid evidence. One even wonders if early Mormons did not use the term “marriage for eternity” to encompass “time and eternity,” as Mormons do today.

Patty Sessions

I am aware of three statements regarding the nature of Patty’s sealing to Joseph Smith. One statement says she was “sealed … for Eternity”, the other that she was merely “sealed to Joseph Smith” and a journal entry that she was “sealed … for time and all eternity.”

“sealed … for Eternity”

Brian Hales reproduces a June 1860 handwritten diary entry (emphasis added):

Patty Bartlett daughter of Enoch and Anne Bartlett was born February 4 1795 Bethel Mane/ and was married to David Session June 28th 1812 who was the son of David and Rachel Sessions, he was born April the 4th 1790 Veshire Vermont I was Batpised into the church of Jesus Christ of later day saints/ July 2 1834 Mr Sessions was Baptised Aug 1735 we received our we received our endowment Dec 16 1845 in Nauvoo. …

I was sealed to Joseph Smith by Willard Richards March 9 1842 in Newel K Whitneys chamber Nauvoo for Eternity and I and if I do not live to attend to it myself when there is a place prepared I want some one to attend to it for me according to order Sylvia my daughter/ was present when I was sealed to Joseph Smith.I was after Mr. Sessions death sealed to John Parry senior for time on the 27 of March 1852 G[reat] S[alt] L. City.

“sealed to Joseph Smith”

Her 1867 affidavit reads (emphasis added):

I Patty Bartlett daughter of Enoch and Anna Bartlett was born February 4th 1795 town of Bethel State of Maine[.]I was Baptised into the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Saints July 2d 1834[. I] was sealed to Joseph Smith the Prophet by Willard Richards March the 9th 1842 in Nauvoo in Newel K Whitneys chamber Sylvia my Daughter was present[.]I received my Endowment in Nauvoo Dec 16 1845. I Never was sealed at the alter to any one.

Yours Truly,

Patty Sessions

“sealed … for time and all eternity”

In her journal [is there any date information??], Patty Sessions stated:

I was sealed to Joseph Smith by Willard Richards Mar 9, 1842, in Newel K. Whitney’s chamber, Nauvoo, for time and all eternity, and if I do not live to attend to it myself when there is a place prepared I want someone to attend to it for me according to order, Sylvia my daughter was present when I was sealed to Joseph Smith. I was after Mr. Sessions’ death sealed to John Parry for time on the 27th, March, 1852, GSL City.

From “Intimate Discipline: A Portrait of Willard Richards”, by Claire Noall. 1957, University of Utah Press. pg 611.

Temple Lot Case - Malissa Lott

In footnote #6 of Brian Hales’s Ruth Vose page, Hales writes:

Recognizing that Joseph Smith’s marriages could have been for either “time and eternity” or just “eternity,” P.P. Kelley questioned Malissa Lott in 1892 regarding the type of sealing ceremony that she experienced with the him: “Did you live with Joseph Smith as his wife, or were you just simply sealed to him for eternity?”(Temple Lot Case, complete transcript, part 3, pages 97, questions 94.) Malissa, who was single at the time of her sealing to the Prophet, had earlier stated: “I was married to him for time and all eternity.”(Ibid., page 95, question 56)

note: I have not been able to find the testimony that Hales references, but it should be accessible in the transcripts on or online at the Church History Library.

Helen Mar Kimball 1881 account

The account

Hales writes “The primary document referring to the relationship is an 1881 poem penned by Helen that has been interpreted in different ways”. The letter, including the poem, is reproduced from a complete transcript here:

Just previous to my father’s starting upon his last mission but one, to the Eastern States, he taught me the principle [p. 1] of Celestial marriage, & having a great desire to be connected with the Prophet, Joseph, he offered me to him; this I afterwards learned from the Prophet’s own mouth. My father had but one Ewe Lamb, but willingly laid her upon the alter: how cruel this seamed to the mother whose heartstrings were already stretched untill they were ready to snap asunder, for he had taken Sarah Noon to wife & she thought she had made sufficient sacrafise, but the Lord required more. I will pass over the temptations which I had during the twenty four hours after my father introduced to me this principle & asked me if I would be sealed to Joseph, who came next morning & with my parents I heard him teach & explain the principle of [p. 1] Celestial marrage-after which he said to me, “If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation and exaltation & that of your father’s household & all of your kindred.

This promise was so great that I will-ingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward. None but God & his angels could see my mother’s bleeding heart—when Joseph asked her if she was willing, she replied “If Helen is willing I have nothing more to say.” She had witnessed the sufferings of others, who were older & who better understood the step they were taking, & to see her child, who had scarcely seen her fifteenth summer, following in the same thorny path, in her mind she saw the misery which was as sure to come as the sun was to rise and set; but it was all hidden from me.

I thought through this life my time will be my own
The step I now am taking’s for eternity alone,
No one need be the wiser, through time I shall be free,
And as the past hath been the future still will be.
To my guileless heart all free from worldly care
And full of blissful hopes—and youthful visions rare
The world seamed bright the thret’ning clouds were kept
From sight, and all looked fair but pitying angels wept.
They saw my youthful friends grow shy and cold.
And poisonous darts from sland’rous tongues were hurled,
Untutor’d heart in thy gen’rous sacrafise,
Thou dids’t not weigh the cost nor know the bitter price;
Thy happy dreems all o’er thou’rt doom’d alas to be
Bar’d out from social scenes by this thy destiny,
And o’er thy sad’nd mem’ries of sweet departed joys
Thy sicken’d heart will brood and imagine future woes,
And like a fetter’d bird with wild and longing heart,
Thou’lt dayly pine for freedom and murmor at thy lot;
But could’st thou see the future & view that glorious crown,
Awaiting you in Heaven you would not weep nor mourn, [p. 2]
Pure and exalted was thy father’s aim, he saw
A glory in obeying this high celestial law,
For to thousands who’ve died without the light
I will bring eternal joy & make thy crown more bright.
I’d been taught to receive the Prophet of God
And receive every word as the word of the Lord.
But had this not come through my dear father’s mouth,
I should ne’r have received it as God’s sacred truth.

Hales’ argument

Hales also quotes some of Helen’s writing from a year later:

During the winter of 1843, there were plenty of parties and balls. … Some of the young gentlemen got up a series of dancing parties, to be held at the Mansion once a week. … I had to stay home, as my father had been warned by the Prophet to keep his daughter away from there, because of the blacklegs and certain ones of questionable character who attended there. … I felt quite sore over it, and thought it a very unkind act in father to allow [my brother] to go and enjoy the dance unrestrained with others of my companions, and fetter me down, for no girl loved dancing better than I did, and I really felt that it was too much to bear. It made the dull school still more dull, and like a wild bird I longer for the freedom that was denied me; and thought myself a much abused child, and that it was pardonable if I did murmur.

And he then argues:

Helen’s feelings certainly don’t reflect those of one who considered herself married. Fourteen is young, but certainly old enough to understand the expectations of a married woman. It seems that if Helen were sexually involved with the Prophet as a plural wife, her anticipation of pregnancy and other wifely responsibilities might have made it clear to her that she was no longer single. In view of the conservative sexual standards embraced at that time, her longings to dance with teenage boys and otherwise socialize may have been subdued as she submitted to her wifehood.

Arguments against “eternity alone”

Others interpret her poem as indicating that the relationship was (or may have been) sexual, which argues against an “eternity only” sealing:

“for the purpose of raising a righteous seed”

In defending polygamy in 1884 in her pamphlet Why We Practice Plural Marriage Helen emphasized the purpose of polygamy (emphasis following mormonthink presentation) (pg 7):

Polygamy, at different periods, has been practiced as a correcter of evils and a promoter of purity; because of the wickedness and corruption into which the world has sunk; and this is the present condition of all civilized nations. Every sign goes to show that we are nearing the end – the winding up scene which all the ancient prophets have foretold, as well as the Prophet Joseph Smith. It was revealed to the latter that there were thousands of spirits, yet unborn, who were anxiously waiting for the privilege of coming down to take tabernacles of flesh, that their glory might be complete. This, Lucifer and his armies, who were cast out of heaven down upon this planet, have been doing their utmost to prevent. Their greatest punishment is in not having bodies; and their mission is to throw dust in the eyes of the children of men, that they may not see the truths of heaven. It is through Lucifer’s wicked schemes that so many thousands of tabernacles have been and are being destroyed, and thereby those choice spirits have been hindered from coming into this state of existence, which event is of the greatest importance to them. But the work of the Almighty is rushing towards its completion, which makes this plural wife system an actual necessity. It was our Father in heaven who commanded that it should be established, and we have nothing to fear for what we have done. It is a controversy between God and Satan. The principle was established by the Prophet Joseph Smith, and all who have entered into it in righteousness, have done so for the purpose of raising a righteous seed; and the object is that we may be restored back to that Eden from whence we fell. (See Helen Mar Whitney, Why We Practice Plural Marriage, pp. 7-8 (Juvenile Instructor 1884)

She also talks about sealing in these terms (pg 10):

My father had a number of wives, some were old ladies who chose to be sealed to him, but he never lived with them only to support them. …

Reed Smoot Hearings

Reed Smoot Hearings from 1906 give some insight into how later leaders viewed sealings and the prevalence of eternity only sealings.

Besides the quoted transcript, all the below words are Johnny Stephenson’s (as documented by Mithryn here).

Angus M. Cannon (who was the nephew of John Taylor) immigrated to Nauvoo in 1842 with his family and went west with the Church. His older brother was George Q. Cannon. He also served in the mission field with John Taylor and was the President of the Salt Lake City Stake and it was said of him that he “was without equal in the field of Church law.”

At the Reed Smoot hearings Cannon testified about sealings:

[Beginning at pg 793]

Senator OVERMAN. What do you mean by a sealing-for-eternity ceremony?
Mr. CANNON. A marriage for eternity.
Senator OVERMAN. As different from a marriage upon this earth ?
Mr. CANNON. Sir?
Senator OVERMAN. Different from the ordinary marriage?
Mr. CANNON. Oh; there is a ceremony for marriage for time and also for eternity.
Senator OVERMAN. Are your wives sealed to you for time or for eternity?
Mr. CANNON. Time and eternity.
Senator OVERMAN. Time and eternity both all six of them?
Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.
Senator OVERMAN. Are there such marriages as sealing for time and sealing for eternity, and some for time’ and some for eternity?
Mr. CANNON. I have witnessed many marriages for time. I never witnessed any for eternity and not for time.
Senator OVERMAN. Are there such marriages as that?
Mr. CANNON. I can not say whether there are or not. Of course there are marriages performed between living people and dead people, by having persons act vicariously for the dead.
Senator OVERMAN. There are such marriages, then, with dead people ?
Mr. CANNON. That is necessarily for eternity. It cannot be for time.
Senator OVERMAN. I say, you do have such marriages as that?
Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.
Senator OVERMAN. A living person marrying a dead person?
Mr. CANNON. By the dead person being represented by a living person.
Senator OVERMAN. By having a representative here on earth he marries a living person here ?
Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir; vicariously, the same as Paul spoke of baptism for the dead.
Senator OVERMAN. Have you seen such marriages as that?
Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir; acting for the dead.
Mr. TAYLER. That does not result in the marriage for time between the proxy and the person who is married to the other for eternity only, does it?
Mr. CANNON. No; it only relates to the dead.
Mr. TAYLER. Do you recall any instances in the history of the church where the proxy vicariously representing the dead person has insisted that for time the woman was his?
Mr. CANNON. No; I never heard of such a thing. We would cut them off the church if they did.
Mr. TAYLER. I would think so. That is all.

Joseph F. Smith also testified,

[Beginning at pg 181]

Mr. TAYLER. And do you have as many different kinds of marriage now as formerly ?
Mr. SMITH. We have as many different kinds of marriage now as formerly.
Mr. TAYLER. Let me call your attention to what I mean, because it will save time: Sealing for time only, sealing for time and eternity, and sealing for eternity only.
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.
Mr. TAYLER. Do you have those ?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.
Mr. TAYLER. All three of them ?
Mr. SMITH. All three of them.

[Beginning at pg 184]

Mr. TAYLER. Do you perform celestial marriage ceremonies now?
Mr. SMITH. That is simply a marriage for time and eternity.
Mr. TAYLER. Time and eternity ?
Mr. SMITH. That is what it means, nothing more and nothing less.
Mr. TAYLER. That, according to the civil or municipal law, is an ordinary marriage, is it not?
Mr. SMITH. Those that are married in that way outside of the temples, it is simply a civil contract for time, but where they have obtained [185] these licenses and go to the temples to be married they are sealed for time and eternity.
Mr. TAYLER. Are there sealings still going on for eternity alone, not for time?
Mr. SMITH. Not that I know of, unless the parties are dead.
Senator FORAKER. Do you marry people for eternity and not for time?
Mr. SMITH. When they are dead; yes, sir.
Senator FORAKER. You marry them after they are dead?
Mr. SMITH. After they are dead; and, Mr. Senator, we do not have to have a license from the court to do that.
Senator FORAKER. That is simply a church marriage?
Mr. SMITH. That is just simply a principle that we believe in, that men and women are immortal beings.
Senator FORAKER. Are both the parties to that marriage dead at the time it is solemnized?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; they are often dead, and they are represented by their heirs, either their sons or daughters, or some of their kinsmen.
Mr. TAYLER. Living persons have been united for eternity, have they not?
Mr. SMITH. I think there have been some few cases of that kind.
Mr. VAN COTT. To what time, Mr. Tayler, do you limit your question ?
Mr. TAYLER. I was going to ask him. How recently have you known that kind of a marriage?
Mr. SMITH. Not very recently.
Mr. TAYLER. Do you mean five years or twenty -five years?
Mr. SMITH. Oh, twenty years or more.
Mr. TAYLER. Is there any rule of the church prohibiting that kind of marriage?
Mr. SMITH. Not that I know of.
Mr. TAYLER. It has merely fallen into disuse; is that all?
Mr. SMITH. It has merely fallen into disuse; that is all. I do not know that it could be said to have fallen absolutely into disuse.
Mr. TAYLER. Or rather, that the principle which still adheres has not been invoked or exercised so often?
Mr. SMITH. No, sir; it has not been invoked.

With further questioning we learn, [need to locate]

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You said you remembered two instances where persons had been sealed by the church for eternity; you said one or two instances?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; one or two instances.
Mr. WORTHINGTON. How long ago were those?
Mr. SMITH. Twenty-five to thirty years ago.

Taylor then wants everyone to totally understand what Smith is saying and further questions him: [need to locate]

Mr. TAYLER. Just one question. I want to be sure that I understand you correctly. You say that Apostle Teasdale told you that to this wife, from whom he had to obtain a divorce, he had been sealed for eternity only?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.
Mr. TAYLER. That he had not been married either for time or for time and eternity, but only for that third form eternity only?
Mr. SMITH. Well, now, Mr. Tayler, I could not tell you as to the form of the ceremony.
Mr. TAYLER. I understand that. I am not speaking about that. But it was merely for eternity ?
Mr. SMITH. That is the understanding they had. It was for eternity, and not for time.
Mr. TAYLER. Exactly; and therefore the relations between them as contemplated at the time of the ceremony were that they should never cohabit ?
Mr. SMITH. Never cohabit.
Mr. WORTHINGTON. Therefore his relations with her were as chaste as if she were his sister or a stranger to him ?
Mr. SMITH. Perfectly so.

Smith was only aware of a “few cases of that kind”. It was not very prevalent, so unusual that Angus Cannon had never heard or participated in one. But they did happen, rarely.

(Remember, Smith had collected as many affidavits from Joseph Smith’s polygamous wives that he could in 1869, so he was familiar with those “marriages”). In fact they were so rare that Angus Cannon (who also testified) had never performed or seen one.

To project this back to the Nauvoo Era is disingenuous, since there is no credible evidence that they ever occurred in Nauvoo. In fact, on one occasion, Heber C. Kimball wanted to do just that, but Joseph Smith Jr. refused to let him. From Helen Kimball:

“When first hearing the principle taught, believing that he would be called upon to enter into it, he had thought of two elderly ladies named Pitkin, great friends of my mother’s who, he believed, would cause her little, if any, unhappiness. But the woman he was commanded to take was an English lady named Sarah Noon, nearer my mother’s age, who came over with the company of Saints in the same ship in which father and Brother Brigham returned from Europe. She had been married and was the mother of two little girls, but left her husband on account of his drunken and dissolute habits. Father was told to take her as his wife and provide for her and her children, and he did so. ~Orson F. Whitney, Life of Heber C. Kimball, 336-337, Whitney writes in a footnote that Smith told Heber C. Kimball that if he did not do as he was told by Joseph he would “lose his Apostleship and be damned.”

I believe that Sarah Noon had a child by Heber in October, 1843 so she would have been sealed to Kimball in January, of 1842.

[End of Johnny Stephenson commentary]

Data and arguments against “eternity only”

Josephine Lyon the daughter of Joseph Smith

In an affidavit signed by her daughter Josephine, Sylvia Sessions—who was legally married to Windsor Lyon—told Josephine on her death bed that Joseph Smith was her father:

Just prior to my mothers death in 1882 she called me to her bedside and told me that her days on earth were about numbered and before she passed away from mortality she desired to tell me something which she had kept as an entire secret from me and from all the others but which she now desired to communicate to me. She then told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith, she having been sealed to the Prophet at the time that her husband Mr. Lyon was out of fellowship with the Church.

Whatever the nature of the marriage or sealing, the prima facie interpretation is that Sylvia had a conjugal relationship with both Joseph Smith and Windsor Lyon in close temporal proximity and argues against an “eternity only” style relationship.

Hales has argued that a figurative/spiritual interpretation is possible:

… an eternity-only sealing between Sylvia and Joseph would have made Josephine his daughter in a spiritual sense automatically, since she was born-in-the-covenant of that sealing. Also, within the Church starting with the 1877 dedication of the St. George Temple, proxy sealings as vicarious adoption ordinances were creating fathers and daughters among individuals with no physical kinship relationship.

But then one wonders why such information would need to have been “kept as an entire secret from me and from all the others” for Sylvia’s entire life.


Need to go through all the affidavits here to look at language patterns.

“married or sealed”

Sylvia Sessions Lyon

1842 sealing date (unsigned)

The unsigned affidavit reads:

“… Sylvia Lyon … on the eighth day of February A.D. 1842, in the City of Nauvoo,… she was married or sealed to President Joseph Smith by [blank] in the presence of [blank]”

1843 sealing date (unsigned)

The unsigned affidavit reads:

“… Sylvia Lyon … on the eighth day of February A.D. 1843 … was married or sealed to President Joseph Smith, in the City of Nauvoo … by [remaining blank]”


Brian Hales “similar to the language found in other eternity-only sealings”

Hales’s evidence for eternity only sealing verbiage is found in footnote 3 here:

See the account of Ruth Vose Sayers in Andrew Jenson Papers [ca. 1871–1942], MS 17956; CHL, Box 49, Folder 16, fifth document; Zina Huntington in Wight interview, “Evidence from Zina D. Huntington Young,” Saints Herald (January 11, 1905): 29; Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner, “Remarks” at Brigham Young University, April 14. 1905, vault MSS 363, fd 6, Harold B. Lee Library, Special Collections, 7 (addendum); Oliver Huntington regarding Zina and Presendia in Journals, no.15, entry for February 18, 1883, HBLL, BYU; Bathsheba Smith’s testimony regarding Jane Law, deposition, Temple Lot transcript, respondent’s testimony, part 3, page 318, questions 564–77; John D. Lee regarding Marinda Hyde in Mormonism Unveiled (St. Louis: Bryan, Brand & Company, 1877), 147; Lucy Meserve Smith, handwritten statement dated May 18, 1892, copy of holograph in Linda King Newell Collection, Marriott Library, University of Utah.

Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo footnote

The Kirtland/Nauvoo polygamy essay states: “Neither these women nor Joseph explained much about these sealings, though several women said they were for eternity alone” points to Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, 1:421–37. [need to get and post photocopy of these pages or at least summarize]

Notable discussions