knowledge, he will be ill able to comprehend the peculiar bitterness,
that in that hour, wrapped and wrung my soul. Accident had made me
acquainted with the Mormon religion; not with its tenets--for it has
none--but with the moral idiosyncrasy of its most eminent "apostles," as
well as that of its humbler devotees--two very different classes of
"Saints."

In the animal world, we seek in vain for the type of either class. The
analogies of wolf and lamb, hawk and pigeon, cat and mouse, cannot be
employed with any degree of appropriateness--not one of them. In all
these creatures there are traits either of nobility or beauty. Neither
is to be found in the life and character of a Mormon--whether he be a
sincere neophyte or a hypocritical apostle. Perhaps the nearest
antagonistic forms of the animal world, by which we might typify the
antithetic conditions of Mormon life, both social and religious, are
those of fox and goose; though no doubt the subtle Reynard would scorn
the comparison. Nor, indeed, is the fox a true type: for even about him
there are redeeming qualities--something to relieve the soul from that
loathing which it feels in contemplating the character of a "ruling
elder" among the "Saints."

It would be difficult to imagine anything further removed, from what we
may term the "divinity of human nature," than one of these. Vulgar and
brutal, cunning and cruel, are ordinary epithets; and altogether too
weak to characterise such a creature. Some of the "twelves" and of the
"seventies" may lack one or other of these characteristics. In most
cases, however, you may safely bestow them all; and if it be the chief
of the sect--the President himself--you may add such other _ugly_
appellatives as your fancy may suggest; and be sure that your
portraiture will still fall short of the hideousness of the original.
Perhaps the most striking characteristic of these fanatics is the
absolute openness of their cheat. A more commonplace imposture has
never been offered for acceptance, even to the most ignorant of mankind.
It appeals neither to reason nor romance. The one is insulted by the
very shallowness of its chicanery, while its rank _plebbishness_
disgusts the other. Even the nomenclature, both of its offices and
office-bearers, has a vulgar ring that smacks of ignoble origin. The
names "twelves," "seventies," "deacons," "wifedoms," "Smiths" (Hiram and
Joseph), Pratt, Snow, Young, Cowdery, and the like--coupl