Barzee is the one who told the truth, yet she will go to prison. Emma Smith lied and covered up for Joseph and is rewritten and revered.

Thoughts?

I have been reading the Barzee transcripts, and the major difference I see between Emman and Wanda is that Wanda really believes.
Emma was in on the scam because she was profiting handsomely, hence the fact that she married a non-member afterward and was not very religious. She saw it as the family business, that is evident.
Wanda, you can tell, still buys into all the crap.

That is a huge difference. The best judge of what people really believe is in what they do. Emma's actions tell us all we need to know.

I don't know what Emma believed, but she didn't help in the kidnap and forcible rape of a 14 year old. Barzee did.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't know what dea believed, but she didn't
> help in the kidnap and forcible rape of a 14 year
> old. Barzee did.


IMO, Emma is just as guilty on this count.

"Emma agreed to let Joseph marry additional wives; provided she could select them. Unaware of their marriage to Joseph months earlier, Emma selected her live-in helpers, Emily and Eliza [Partridge]." http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/2021-EmilyandElizaPartridge.htm

The sisters were 19 and 22, but were dependent on the Smith's for their care and boarding. Emma was apparently unaware that JS had already married the two girls months earlier.

“To save the family trouble Brother Joseph thought it best to have another ceremony performed...[Emma] had her feelings, and so we thought there was no use in saying anything about it so long as she had chosen us herself...Accordingly...we were sealed to JS a second time, in Emma’s presence.”

caedmon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bona dea Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I don't know what dea believed, but she didn't
> > help in the kidnap and forcible rape of a 14
> year
> > old. Barzee did.
>
>
> IMO, Emma is just as guilty on this count.
>
> "Emma agreed to let Joseph marry additional wives;
> provided she could select them. Unaware of their
> marriage to Joseph months earlier, Emma selected
> her live-in helpers, Emily and Eliza ."
> http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/2021-EmilyandEli
> zaPartridge.htm
>
> The sisters were 19 and 22, but were dependent on
> the Smith's for their care and boarding. Emma was
> apparently unaware that JS had already married the
> two girls months earlier.
>
> “To save the family trouble Brother Joseph
> thought it best to have another ceremony
> performed... had her feelings, and so we thought
> there was no use in saying anything about it so
> long as she had chosen us
> herself...Accordingly...we were sealed to JS a
> second time, in Emma’s presence.”
The point is shedidn't kidnap, rape, or hold anyone captive against their will and there was no law saying fourteen year olds were incapable of consent. Emma did elp facilitate Joseph's sexual escapades, but not in the same degree that Barzee did.IMO there is a big difference.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> caedmon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > bona dea Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I don't know what dea believed, but she
> didn't
> > > help in the kidnap and forcible rape of a 14
> > year
> > > old. Barzee did.
> >
> >
> > IMO, Emma is just as guilty on this count.
> >
> > "Emma agreed to let Joseph marry additional
> wives;
> > provided she could select them. Unaware of
> their
> > marriage to Joseph months earlier, Emma
> selected
> > her live-in helpers, Emily and Eliza ."
> >
> http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/2021-EmilyandEli
>
> > zaPartridge.htm
> >
> > The sisters were 19 and 22, but were dependent
> on
> > the Smith's for their care and boarding. Emma
> was
> > apparently unaware that JS had already married
> the
> > two girls months earlier.
> >
> > “To save the family trouble Brother Joseph
> > thought it best to have another ceremony
> > performed... had her feelings, and so we
> thought
> > there was no use in saying anything about it so
> > long as she had chosen us
> > herself...Accordingly...we were sealed to JS a
> > second time, in Emma’s presence.”
> The point is shedidn't kidnap, rape, or hold
> anyone captive against their will and there was no
> law saying fourteen year olds were incapable of
> consent. Emma did elp facilitate Joseph's sexual
> escapades, but not in the same degree that Barzee
> did.IMO there is a big difference.

Sorry, I still disagree. Emma participated in her husband's use of religious coersion to sexually exploit young girls and women.

If a religious leader approaches a young girl and persuades her that God has decreed their sexual relationship is acceptable, is that somehow more acceptable because he didn't use physical restraint and isolation? Isn't that the tactic used by the LDS seminary teacher in Utah County who was recently convicted?

Is there a scale that one form of sexual explotation is more acceptable than another? Smith may not have physically kidnapped his victims, but he certainly did "kidnap" them emotionally and psychologically using his ecclesiastical authority. Emma participated as an enabler for her own less that stellar motives. Is that more acceptable?