How Many Wives Did Joseph Smith Have? The Honest Count

The Answer First

The Number, and Where It Comes From

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints states, in its own Gospel Topics essay on plural marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo, that Joseph Smith was sealed to between thirty and forty women — a range published on churchofjesuschrist.org since 2014 and footnoted to the same historical scholarship this article uses. The most careful documented roster inside that range is Todd Compton’s: thirty-three wives, each supported by converging credible evidence, compiled in the award-winning study our site reviews in full at /in-sacred-loneliness. Emma Hale Smith stands apart from every count: she was Joseph’s first wife, his only civil wife, the mother of all his children, and — after the plural sealings began — sealed to him herself for time and eternity in May 1843. So the honest one-line answer a seeker can carry away: one wife in the ordinary sense; thirty to forty sealed under the plural-marriage practice; thirty-three of them documented to the scholarly standard. Every part of that sentence has a source, and none of it is contested between the Church and the historians — which is itself the first fact worth knowing, because the question usually arrives wrapped in the assumption that somebody official is still denying it.

The Number Is Not the Story

What the Count Carries With It

A count answered honestly obligates the next facts, so here they are, unflinched. Eleven of the documented wives were civilly married to living husbands when sealed to Joseph — about a third, none divorced for it, several husbands present as witnesses. That is a fact; its meaning is the field’s most genuine dispute — and the scholarship built on the fullest documentary record lands on the faithful side of it. Brian Hales, who assembled all fourteen such cases across three volumes, finds no credible evidence of conjugality in any of them and reads the sealings as eternity-only covenants that left the earthly marriages intact — a conclusion strong enough on the best-documented case that it persuaded even D. Michael Quinn. Compton weighs some late testimony differently; Lawrence Foster argues “polyandry” is the wrong category for what the participants understood. Our chart marks the rows CONTESTED because that is the state of the field, while noting which way the documents run. Hales also observes the pattern’s own logic: in the early Nauvoo stretch, nearly every proposal went to an already-married woman — consistent with nonsexual eternity-only sealings undertaken to obey a command while sparing Emma, and consistent with the wider record of reluctance: multiple independent accounts of repeated angelic command, and roughly a decade between the earliest revelation and the general practice. The ages ran from fourteen to fifty-eight — eleven wives aged 14–20, nine in their twenties, eight in their thirties, five over forty, per Compton’s published distribution, charted whole in the companion reference. The youngest, Helen Mar Kimball, was sealed at her father’s initiative “several months before her 15th birthday” — the essay’s own words — with the sealing’s earthly scope unstated in the sources and consummation unevidenced per the scholarship; her adult writings spent decades defending the principle. The practice was kept from the public and, in part, from Emma — she knew of and facilitated four sealings in May 1843 and was shielded from others, and the era’s public denials are real, wrong, and treated head-on in our dedicated study rather than minimized here. And the women testified — under oath, under cross-examination, and across the rest of their lives — to covenant and conviction as they understood it. Every one of these facts survives on the Church’s own website; what does not survive contact with the full record is the version where the count is a secret, the ages are hidden, or the women are silent.

Steelmanning the Critics

The Strongest Objection

The serious critic doesn’t dispute the count; he weaponizes its history: for over a century, the missionary-facing answer to “how many wives” was one — Emma — while the documented answer sat in archives and affidavit files the institution itself controlled. The 2014 essay, on this reading, is not transparency but triage: an admission timed to the internet, phrased in ranges, buried off the main navigation, and unaccompanied by any acknowledgment that generations of members learned a sanitized story. The number was never the secret, the critic says — the silence was. And a page like this one, however sourced, arrives 170 years late to a question the Church could have answered any decade it chose.

Concede what is true in that before answering it: twentieth-century curriculum did not teach Joseph’s plural marriages; converts and members regularly met them first from hostile sources; and the whiplash of that discovery is a documented driver of faith crisis — this site exists partly because the gap was real. Three things then complete the record. First, the silence was never archival concealment. The affidavits were collected and preserved by the Church itself in 1869; Latter-day Saint publications defended Joseph’s plural marriage by name throughout the nineteenth century (Helen Mar Kimball’s own booklets among them); and the modern essay footnotes scholars who worked, with Church cooperation, in Church archives. An institution hiding a fact does not curate its evidence for a century and then publish it. Second, the curriculum gap has a less sinister explanation that is still a criticism — a correlated, worldwide teaching program built around living doctrine rather than historical controversy, which under-prepared members for history the institution had never denied in its scholarly channels. The Church’s own pivot — the essays, the Saints volumes, the Joseph Smith Papers — is the correction, and this page’s whole method is built on the materials that pivot produced. Third, the timing objection cannot indict the content: the essay’s range matches the independent scholarship not because both are managed but because both are documented. Late honesty is a fair criticism of an institution’s pastoral past. It is not evidence against the record — and a seeker deciding what is true deserves the record, not a grievance standing where the record should be.

Our Editorial Standard, Shown

The Nine-Principle Review: How This Article Was Stress-Tested

On a head-question answer page, the seventh and eighth principles carry the load: plain clarity, and accuracy that owns the sting — including the sting aimed at our own side’s old silences.

The same nine-point review is applied to every study we publish. Principles drawn from published apostolic teachings; see our editorial standards page.

Frequently Asked Questions