CHAPTER 43 OF TELL IT ALL by FANNY STINHOUSE The world was all before them where to choose their place of rest, with Providence their guide they hand in hand with trembling steps and slow through Eden took their solitary way. Paradise lost. When we left the Mormon Church we were not quite as badly off as were our first parents when they began life, although in some respects we certainly resembled them. The world was all before us, and it was necessary that we also should choose a place of rest, but it was by no means Eden from which we were dismissed, or rather had dismissed ourselves, and in the matter of experience in the thorny ways of that world in which we were about to begin afresh the battle of existence we certainly had the advantage over the exiles from Paradise. The crisis of our own lives had now arrived, the act of sending in our resignation as members of the Church cut us off from all the associations of the past, and all the friendships and pleasant intimacies of so many years. A great gulf divided our bygone life from the unknown future which lay before us. My husband was now made painfully aware that it was altogether useless for him to attempt to carry on his paper, for his subscribers, as I before stated, had been counseled to discontinue taking it in. The Daily Telegraph had had a very large circulation, but as there was very little money in the territory, the yearly subscriptions were mostly paid at harvest time, and many of them in grain. At the time therefore when the paper was finally given up, the Mormon people, as the bookkeeper in Ogden informed us, owed about twenty thousand dollars, but when it was discovered that we were apostates, the majority of them considered that they were released from all obligations on that score, and my husband being an easy generous-minded man, most of them evaded payment. The idea that, because we had left the church, no saint was bound to pay us any debts which they might happen at the time to owe, was the natural result of the teachings of the tabernacle. Apostates are delivered over to the buffettings of Satan, and the saints consider it is their duty to begin in this world their master's work of castigation. Any ill-turn that can be done to an apostate is consequently a good action in the opinion of the Mormons, and they neglect no opportunity of showing that these are the sentiments which influence them. Although we had now left the Mormon church, never to return, my husband could not at once shake off entirely that influence which had so long held him captive. His thoughts and belief, his hopes and ambitions, had for a quarter of a century all pointed in one direction, and the very idea of rebellion on his part against the authority of the priesthood would, but a very little while before the time of which I speak, have been considered by him an utter impossibility. It was impossible in a few short months only to undo the work of five and twenty years, the best years of his life. He could no longer remain in the church or conscientiously support Brigham Young, but he had not outgrown Mormonism sufficiently to enable him to throw off the yoke entirely, and make his paper an opponent of Brigham and his faith. Could he have done so, I think it is highly probable that the telegraph might yet have been saved, for I know that many of the more influential of the Gentiles would have aided him materially in such a course. As it was nothing remained but to give it up with the best grace he could. Two offers in reference to the paper were received by Mr. Stanhouse, and it remained for him to decide which he would accept. One of them came from a Gentile who proposed to run it in opposition to Brigham Young, and the other came from a certain Mr. Fuller, who had for some time been my husband's travelling agent, and was a very intimate friend of John W. Young, Brigham's youngest son by his first wife. We knew that this Fuller had nothing beyond his salary, but as the friend of Brigham's son we thought that probably it was the prophet's wish that he should have this paper, and we believed that he was simply buying it for the church. My husband argued that, although he could no longer unite with the Mormons, he could at least refrain from doing them any injury. He therefore concluded that, rather than let the paper go into the hands of an avowed enemy, he would sell it to Mr. Fuller, who on account of his friendship for the prophet's family would, he presumed, try to be just to the people. This no doubt was very conscientious and just, although, of course, no Mormon would give my husband credit for entertaining such sentiments. For my own part I naturally wished him to accept the offer that would pay him the best, which was that made by the Gentile. He could not, however, bring his mind to do this. The paper, therefore, was sold to Mr. Fuller, who ran it for a few months, and then himself ran away, leaving behind him debts enough to swallow up everything. Thus ended the telegraph under that name, but destined, however, to rise again as the salt lake herald, a paper devoted to the interests of Brigham and the priesthood. To my husband it was an utter loss, but it was hardly fair that his conscientious conduct should meet with such an ill return. It was now necessary that some steps should be taken to provide for our family. The reader may perhaps remember that when we first arrived in Salt Lake City as I stated, I myself engaged in business until my husband was able to find some suitable and profitable employment. When the telegraph, however, was established, and proved such a great success, and we were in a position of affluence, I considered the pressure of necessity being removed, that I should do well to resign my own business connection and employ my time more profitably in domestic affairs. This was a great relief to me, for I always felt considerable repugnance in mixing with the world in any way of business while among my children and attending to their wants and interests I found myself in my own legitimate sphere. But there was now no alternative. All interest in the telegraph had been resigned. My husband's property had been wasted in an attempt to keep it up, and he had nothing now to depend upon. Something must be done, and I resolved that I would not be backward in bearing my full share of the burden. It was only natural that we should feel very much unsettled in mind by the great change which had taken place in our position, for it is no easy matter to cut us under the ties and associations of a lifetime. Anyone suddenly changing his religious faith would, to a certain extent, feel and understand what I mean in this respect. But in reference to any ordinary religion, the person forsaking it would probably experience comparatively little alteration in his everyday life. In Mormonism it is very different, especially to anyone who has occupied a prominent position among the saints. To resign our religion was to revolutionize our lives. Everything was changed. The friends of yours would look coldly upon us and avoid us. Persons whom we had before shunned as Gentiles or apostates would be the only individuals who would regard us with favor. Our entire position in the midst of a most exclusive community was completely reversed. In a word, we ourselves were now apostates. Thinking to turn the current of his thoughts and believing that change would be beneficial to him, I suggested to my husband that he should pay a visit to the Eastern States. In New York I believed he could find employment which would help to divert his thoughts for Mormon affairs, and at the same time would be profitable to him in other respects. My suggestion was acted upon and my husband set out east while I prepared to engage again in the same business which I had formerly conducted so successfully. Now for the first time since I embraced Mormonism I mixed freely with Gentiles and those who had left the church, and it was not long before I found that this intercourse with the outer world produced a market and decided effect upon my mind. My views were enlarged and my thoughts became more liberal in their tone. My husband's letters showed me that a similar change was taking place in him. We were not the only apostates from the church at that time, the new movement as the reaction against the tyranny of Brigham Young was called, and the minds of all intelligent saints were led to reflect upon the unheard of claims of Brigham's infallible priesthood. At this time the prophet endeavored to rivet still more firmly the fetters which bound his deluded followers by establishing Zion's cooperative mercantile institution and reviving the order of Enoch. The cooperative institution was announced as a joint stock concern, established under the pretense that it would be a benefit to the working classes, and all the members of the church were invited to purchase shares which were sold at $25 each. The statement so often made by Brigham and repeated by strangers, to the effect that the exorbitant prices charged by gentile merchants necessitated the establishment of such an institution was, as every Mormon knows, only a pretense and a very shallow one, too. For the Walker Brothers and other merchants had for many years supplied goods to Mormons and gentiles alike at what, under the circumstances, were reasonable and just prices. For the railway not then being constructed, and every article of commerce being of necessity carried across the plains a distance of over a thousand miles by horse teams, prices were of course very high, and would, if this circumstance were not taken into consideration, appear extortionate. In fact, subsequently the cooperative stores, which had started with high rates, under the belief that every rival would be crushed, were compelled to lower their prices to those of the Walker Brothers, or in spite of their faith the Mormons would have forsaken Brigham's institution for the sake of their pockets. Many, in fact, did secretly go to gentile stores, but they were watched by the police and reported to the teachers. That large Mormon store, in which Brigham Young had such a heavy interest, was to become the parent establishment, the fountain head from which temporal blessings, in the shape of cheap goods of every description, were to flow unto the people. Each ward was to have its own store, and there the saints of that ward were expected to deal exclusively, and as the teachers said, keep off Main Street, where the gentile stores were located. These ward stores purchased their goods from the parent store, where nothing was sold by wholesale. All the lesser Mormon merchants were counseled to sell out their stock to the church for just what the church chose to offer them, or dispose of it otherwise as best they could, and then they might go farming or on a mission or anything else, but sell out they must, for they were plainly told that they would not be allowed to carry on business in opposition to the new institution. Now, instead of benefiting the poorer saints by supplying goods to them at a small advance upon cost prices, as was at first proclaimed to be the object of the co-op, as the institution was briefly and familiarly called, the reverse was the case, for competition was altogether banished. All the trade of the gentile merchants, with one or two exceptions, was forcibly taken from them, for the people were not to trade in any store without first looking to see if the sign of the institution, a picture of the all seeing I, and the word's holiness unto the Lord, were over the doorway. How often I have seen groups of country people, straggling along with their heads thrown back, and their eyes straining aloft an eager quest of that sign, although perhaps their purchases would only amount to a few yards of ribbon or a paper of pins. No one can predict what the church, otherwise Brigham, will do, if money should chance to tempt him. In this case the parent co-operative store turned, as I might say, traitor to the ward stores, its own children, for no sooner had they all been established, and had bought up all the old stock from the parent store, than it was whispered abroad that the latter was about to open in the retail line with the splendid stock of new goods, to suit the gentiles, of course, for the saints were not allowed to trade outside of their own ward stores, where they were expected to buy up all the old goods. In fact, in order to gain gentile trade and fill the pockets of Brigham and the leading elders who really constituted the institution, and do so still, the same prices were asked at the parent store, as had been charged at the poor confiding stockholders of the ward stores at wholesale. This of course caused great dissatisfaction, and many of the saints rebelled, declaring that they would go where they pleased to spend their money, when they had any to spend. The ward stores in consequence were obliged at great loss to lower their prices, and many were utterly ruined. Others which had more capital, tied it over the difficulty, and learned a lesson concerning the honesty of the church leaders, which it is to be hoped did them good. As an example of the way in which matters were managed, I may instance a very old and infirm woman who was one of their victims. She came to me one day and said, Sister Stenhouse, will you buy out my stock in the cooperative store? Our store has failed, and I have my twenty-five dollars worth in my basket. I pitied her and asked her to let me see her stock, and thereupon she brought out a pound and a half of nails. I did buy out her stock, for I thought that the nails might be handy to have in the house, although I did not give her twenty-five dollars for them. Another person, a Frenchman, whom I knew, bought a share, and when he saw certain ruin looming over his ward store, he went to the headquarters and purchased twenty-five dollars worth of goods, and having got them all secured, laid down his shareholder's receipt in payment, and beat a hasty retreat. He was a fortunate man, and acted prudently. But alas for the poor souls who ventured all their little savings in these church institutions, and then were left to poverty and starvation. The order of Enoch is the crowning swindle of all. Its victims, under a legal form, make over to the church every cent of which they may be possessed, even to the very close upon their backs, and place themselves, their whole life and being, entirely at the command of the church. They do in fact literally make themselves slaves, only their slavery is infinitely worse, and more debasing than the bondage of the Negro, for they give soul and mind as well as body and goods, utterly, absolutely, and forever, into the iron grasp of the Mormon priesthood. This order of Enoch is quite a favorite institution with Brigham Young, who has lately been preaching it up throughout Utah, and many hundred fanatical and diluted saints have at his instigation, given, not sold, for they receive nothing in return, themselves into the subject slavery. And yet these are the institutions which, unprejudiced newspaper reporters and editors, when they visit Utah, and are, according to the fixed and ordinary custom of Brigham, treated and totied to, until poor dupes, they think that the favors they receive are simply marks of the appreciation of the Mormons for their own conceited or diluted selves, personally, and not part and parcel of his system. These I say are the institutions which such visitors laud to the skies, when they speak of the prophet's generosity, his open heartedness, his patriarchal benevolence, and his other saintly virtues. When we left the church, these institutions were attracting a good deal of attention among the saints. The cooperative still flourishes, and the order of Enoch has within the last few weeks been gathering into its net not tens, but hundreds of dupes. About this time also it was that the Mormon women, under the auspices of Eliza R. Snow, and the female Relief Society, got up that petition to Mrs. Grant, to which I have referred in another place, begging her to use her influence with the President in favor of a toleration of polygamy. The names to that petition were affixed without any reference to propriety or right. Hundreds of names were copied from the books of the society without any permission being obtained, or even asked of their owners. It was then, as I before stated, that the names of the dead were actually added as subscribers to the petition. And in one case, when a lady mentioned that her dead daughter had never belonged to the church, as she died before her mother heard of Mormonism, she was told that her daughter would now of course have found out that polygamy was the true order of domestic life in heaven, and that she would certainly be willing to subscribe if she could return to earth. Her name was therefore added without any further ceremony, although she had been dead a good many years. In January, 1872, a counter petition was got up by the Gentile and apostate ladies. It set forth the cruel bondage which polygamy inflicts upon women, spoke of the heartless conduct of the Mormon leaders, and of the murderers and other foul crimes which had been committed by them, or at their instigation, showed that should Utah become a state under the name of Deseret, which has ever been the ambition of Brigham Young, there would be no protection for life or property, stated that the authorities themselves had declared that when statehood was conferred, Gentiles and apostates would have good cause to tremble, and finally prayed the national government to stretch forth its long arm of power for the defense and protection of honest and law-abiding citizens. This petition was signed by four hundred and forty ladies of Utah, whose real names were all fairly and openly affixed by their own selves. It was presented to the Senate by the Honorable Schuyler Colfax, then Vice President, was read, discussed, and ordered to be printed. As might be supposed, it excited a great deal of angry discussion on the part of the church authorities, and the following Sundays the names of those who had signed were read out in the tabernacle and strong remarks made upon their conduct in order to intimidate them and prevent others from following their example. The consequence was that many of their husbands and sons were threatened with loss of employment, and they were thus forced to retract. That same year a bill was brought into the territorial legislature, providing that boys of fifteen years of age and girls of twelve might legally contract marriage with the consent of their parents or guardians. In stating this disgraceful fact I am still certain that the reader who has never lived among the saints, and is not versed in Utah affairs, will think that I must be mistaken in what I say. It is, however, I am sorry to say, only too true, and the records of the legislature will bear me witness. The fact was stated in the New York Herald of January twenty-seventh, eighteen seventy-two. It will be a matter of interest to the advocates of women's suffrage to learn that Brigham Young conferred the franchise upon the Mormon ladies. This at first appears to be a very liberal measure, but let not the innocent reader be deceived thereby. The opening of the minds and the great influx of gentiles, consequent upon the completion of the Union Pacific Railroad, proved very clearly to Brigham that the day might come when the gentiles would have an equality if not a majority of votes, and in that day the slavish despotism of the Mormon priesthood would be overthrown. The time certainly was very far off, but it was wise to provide for contingencies, so a bill was brought in conferring upon women the privilege of voting. No Mormon woman would for a moment ever dream of voting otherwise than she was directed by her husband, and no man would think of voting except as he was counseled by the priesthood. Thus a man with half a dozen wives would now have half a dozen votes, and Brother Brigham, instead of having only his own single vote, would have nineteen for his nineteen wives, to say nothing of his daughters and the whole array of spiritual wives which he might produce. I have often seen one solitary man driving into the city, a whole wagon-load of women of all ages and sizes, they were going to the poll, and their votes would be one. It is very easy to see how, in this way, the influence of the priesthood has been extended, and women themselves have been made the instruments for riveting still more firmly their own fetters. But it is by no means easy to see that women in Utah have derived any benefit from being permitted to vote. Voting among the saints has always been carried on in a very free and easy manner. One gentleman, an English convert, not long since told me that when he had been less than two months in the States, and of course was not naturalized, and had no rights as a citizen, he was counseled by the Mormon leaders to give in his vote. He did so, and in obedience to instructions received, he gave in also his wife's vote, and a vote of their little baby girl, an infant of only a few months old. Although that was before the voting of women was legalized, others have voted two or three times so as to make sure that the church should not lose their interest, and this very common practice of the same persons voting over and over again renders all statistics given by Mormon authority utterly untrustworthy, besides which the voting tickets are all numbered and the voters' names carefully registered in a book, so that the priesthood can tell at a moment's notice on which side, or for whom, a man has cast his vote. In this way the ballot in Utah becomes a most ridiculous farce instead of a means for obtaining unbiased and uninfluenced elections. Anxious to obtain admission into the union as a state, it is the interest of Brigham Young and the leaders to swell the numbers of the population by every means in their power. For this they have strained every nerve to bring over converts from abroad, and with the same object to build up the kingdom, they have forced polygamy upon the people. The most unscrupulous measures have been resorted to, and it is even said that on one occasion when a goodly show of names was needed, not only were the names of the dead and of relations and converts who had never been in the country at all added as subscribers to the document, but that they actually christened their mules, conferring upon them the names of a man, and then made them vote also. Notwithstanding the vigilance of the priesthood, many young Mormon ladies have preferred Gentile husbands, and some of them have left the territory, but they have been invariably traduced and scandalised, and whenever the rumour of misfortune occurring to any of them reached Salt Lake City, it was retailed with undisguised gratification as a sweet morsel by the priesthood. Some Mormon mothers, hating the idea of their daughters marrying polygamists, have encouraged the addresses of Gentiles, and were only too glad to have their children marry out of Mormonism. Such mothers, of course, are a posthate in heart, although nominally they may not have left the church. The extravagancies of modern dress render it every year more and more difficult for men of moderate means to support many wives. Fashion is proving a deadly vote to polygamy, and the feminine taste for finery is in Utah, helping to bring about some really good, practical results. There is now a pleasing change noticeable in the plural marriages in Salt Lake City. There are not nearly so many marriages of this kind among the actual citizens, as there were three or four years ago. The opening of the mines and the construction of the railroad brought so many strangers among us that it was impossible to withstand their influence. Many of our young Mormon maidens have been beguiled into matrimony by those wicked Gentiles, against Tombbrother Brigham has so often warned us. And not only so, but many good saints have apparently come to the conclusion that though polygamy was so absolutely necessary to their own salvation, it is not by any means essential to the salvation of their daughters. Thus some of them have given their daughters to the sons of strangers, to become in due time mothers of a race of wicked Gentiles, and if one might judge from their conversation they do not appear to regret it very much. The dislike of the women to polygamy has increased, especially in Salt Lake City, although in the settlements fanaticism is as rampant as ever, and the celestial system is the order of the day. Young Mormon girls are disgusted when they hear young men, and even boys talking of their privileges, boasting how many wives they mean to take, and how they will take two on the same day in order to preserve peace. Girls of the slightest feeling or intelligence resent all this, and the more refined regard these little would-be polygamists, and all they say, with intense loathing and contempt. To Gentile girls such insults are of course unknown, and the Mormon girls, when they have the opportunity of mixing with the outside world, are not slow to discover that well, if they marry among people of their own faith, they will never occupy their proper position in society. If they become Gentile wives, they will be the cherished companions, and equals of the men to whom they are united. Sensitive girls will say that they would rather have a little less glory in the world to come, and have a little more comfort in this. Then, too, the married women compare the condition of the Gentile wives with their own, and the comparison is by no means in favor of polygamy. A polygamic wife who is one of many, and only sees her husband occasionally, and that as a favor, cannot well visit a Gentile wife in her own home without drawing a comparison by no means in favor of Mormonism. Many Mormon wives have thus become unhappy, and hence the most strenuous exertions are made on the part of the leaders to prevent as far as possible all intercourse between the saints and the outside world. Notwithstanding this, a leading attorney in Salt Lake City told me that during the year succeeding our abandonment of Mormonism more than one hundred first wives called upon him, proposing to enter suit for divorce and alimony. And this represents but a small proportion of those who would sacrifice almost anything if only they could escape from polygamy. Left to itself Mormonism would long ago have perished, so great has been the number of apostates. But England and Scandinavia furnish yearly a multitude of dupes who come over every summer by the thousands to aid in carrying on the imposture. These with the people in the settlements who are purposely kept in ignorance, slavery and poverty, perpetuate polygamy in Utah. John W. Young, the prophet's son, to whom I have already alluded, became disgusted with polygamy and abandoned it. Therefore, according to his father's teaching, he cannot now enter into the celestial kingdom. But Brigham Young says that he, as the successor of Joseph Smith, holds the keys of the kingdom, he probably thinks that he will be able to shuffle his son John W. in a quiet way. For my own part I do not suppose that Brigham Young believes one word of the nonsense he teaches to the people. He is far too shrewd for that. A certain Utah official once said to my husband, Brigham has got the best thing in America, and he means to hold on to it. That is about the sum and substance of Brigham's religion. About eight years ago, John W., who is a handsome, gentlemanly young man, married a Miss Lucy Canfield of Ogden, it is said in obedience to the counsel of his father. Two years subsequently he married Miss Clara Jones, whose father, when living, had occupied a prominent position in the church. This lady also it was stated, he married in obedience to a command of the prophet, who had been known to say that he wished one of his sons to marry her, and that if they did not he would marry her himself. Brigham has often told men to marry certain women, and they have felt bound to obey, believing probably, as Mormon men generally do, that it makes very little difference, after all, who they married, as they have got to have a certain number of wives in order to enter the celestial kingdom, and among them all they will be sure to find one whom they can love. Mormon men are not very different from other men, for although they tell their numerous wives quite another story, they can truly love but one woman at a time. Some good saints, I do not doubt, do really believe to the contrary, but love thus divided is not worthy of the name. In this respect men resemble women, no woman can love two men at the same time. The two young girls, the wives of John W. Young, of course, each in turn, believed that she was the beloved one, but subsequently they discovered how greatly they had been mistaken, for John W. had not yet met with his affinity. In the course of time, however, the fair one appeared who was to enslave his heart, and John W. submitted without a murmur. Mrs. Lucy Canfield Young, the first wife, had cousins living in Philadelphia, and as John W. was returning from England, where he had been on mission, at the request of his wife he called to see them, and there he met with his fate in the person of Miss Lizzie Canfield, one of his wife's cousins. He immediately fell deeply in love with this young lady, and requested her to go with him to Salt Lake City to visit his wife. She agreed, and with her sister, accompanied him, and before they arrived at the termination of their journey she had promised to marry him. She had no faith in Mormonism, but everything was forgotten in love. After their marriage Miss Canfield, now Mrs. John W. Young, number three, became very unhappy, for she felt deeply her degraded position, and though she dearly loved her husband, would have left him, had she not felt that such a step would render him perfectly miserable, for it was evident that he cared nothing at all for his other two wives. They, poor girls, were also destined to become victims to this disgraceful system, abandoned in their youth, and one of them the mother of two or three children. The first wife, Lucy Canfield Young, perceiving that her husband no longer cared for her, withdrew womanly dignity, withdrew from his husbandly care, obtained a divorce, and became Miss Lucy Canfield again. Miss Clara Jones Young could not so easily bring her mind to leave the father of her children, but still hopes that her true and husband will return to his unhappy wife, from whom he has not yet been divorced, although he no longer lives with her. In this, however, she is mistaken. John W. will never return to her, for he is completely disgusted with his father's pet scheme of celestial marriage, and undoubtedly would be formally separated from his second wife, were it not that according to Mormon law, the wife alone has the privilege of applying for a divorce. He is in fact, at heart, a vial apostate, as his father calls seceders from the church, for no one can possibly be a good Mormon without believing with all his soul in polygamy. Take polygamy and the endowments from Mormonism, and there is nothing left to distinguish that faith from any other of the absurd religions which have, from time to time, been advocated by fanatical men. John W. Young, notwithstanding the apostate spirit which has fallen upon him, has lately been appointed to preside over the saints at St. George in southern Utah, and I sincerely trust that he will lead all those good saints over whom he is sent to preside to think as he does respecting plural marriage, and that his wife may do her best to create in the minds of the unhappy and degraded sisters around her a desire for that higher social position, that perfect equality with man, which is the inalienable right of every woman. It is very fortunate for John W. Young that he is the son of his father, for if he had been any other man's son, and had abandoned polygamy, he would never have been appointed to preside over the saints in St. George or anywhere else. But Brigham is all powerful in Mormondom. It is he who controls the affairs of the kingdom, and if he chooses to allow an apostate son, not only to pass muster, but to be accounted worthy to rule among the saints, who shall gain say it? Brigham has a bitter hatred of apostates and apostasy. The very name apostate is the most cruel arrow in his quiver. And yet the very man who, if Brigham's own precedent were followed, ought to succeed him, or sin hide, the president of the twelve apostles, was once an apostate in Missouri, and a very cowardly one at that. Brigham himself, little as he perhaps imagines it, is the prince of apostates. He became an apostate Methodist when he left Methodism and joined the Mormons, and certainly he is now an apostate for Mormonism, as Joseph Smith first taught it. The change from Methodism to Mormonism, as it was first presented to the world, was nothing near so great as the departure which Brigham has made from the original faith of the saints. There have been many apostates from the teachings of Joseph in early days, but of all apostates brother Brigham is the chief. It may perhaps surprise the reader to learn that in polygamous Utah, notwithstanding the constant importation of young girls from abroad, there are 2056 more males than females. In four counties only are the females in excess of the males. In Salt Lake County, which includes Salt Lake City, there are 299 more females than males. In Cash County, there are 93 more. In Iron County, there are 31, and in St. Pete, there are 238 more females than males. In all the other 17 counties, the males are in excess of the females. In many instances, the sexes are singularly balanced, as, for instance, in Washington County, where there are 1,532 males, and exactly the same number of females. Weber County has an excess of 336 males, Payute has 69 males to 13 females, and in Severe County there are 19 unfortunate males who are not blessed with the presence of a single female. These figures I obtained from the Census Bureau at Washington. They speak for themselves and clearly demonstrate that as far as Utah is concerned, instead of polygamy being a necessity on account of the preponderance of the female sex, the facts are exactly the reverse. And if some men have two, four, six, eight, or ten wives, for every wife that they take, some other man is forced to remain single. Considering the multiplicity of wives among the more pious saints, and the large number of minors, who, of course, are either unmarried or have not brought their wives with them to Utah, it is quite evident that there must be a good many single men in Utah. But before closing my narrative, I must add a few words relative to myself. After my husband had been in New York for some months, it became necessary on account of business that I should join him there. I did so, and found him busy upon a history of Mormonism, which he had for some years contemplated writing, and for which he had collected a large amount of valuable facts and statistics from the historian's office in Salt Lake City. While still a Mormon, he had proposed to vindicate the saints and justify their leaders. But now that his eyes were open to the degrading superstition and the cruel bondage of the system, he was determined, as far as he had the ability to do so, to expose the corruption and tyranny of the priesthood. I heartily coincided with him and encouraged him with wifely commendations. At that time I had no idea of becoming myself an author, and it was not until the close of that same year, when I beat a second visit to New York, that I first seriously entertained the idea of appearing before the public. I was induced to write a little volume which I thought would expose some of the cruel wrongs which Mormon polygamy and plexipon diluted, helpless women. My work was very kindly received and extensively circulated, but it was, I must confess, only a very imperfect and brief sketch. In this present volume I have endeavored to supply the deficiencies of the former, and in a truthful, if imperfect, sketch of my own life, and my own experience in, and observations of, the working of the polygamic system, I have endeavored to give my readers a just idea of what polygamy and Mormonism really are. With the exception of the little literary efforts which I have made from time to time to expose through the press the iniquity of the celestial order of marriage, no event of more than personal and private interest has, since I left the Mormon Church, interrupted the even tenor of my life. Last year, however, I was able to deal another blow, weak it might be, but still it was a blow, directed at that false system against which I have sworn eternal enmity. I lectured upon Mormon polygamy in Washington and Boston and other large cities, and attempted in my humble way to attract the attention of the Gentile world to the iniquities of that terrible superstition which in Utah has degraded womanhood and wrecked the happiness of thousands of my diluted sisters. I met with sympathy everywhere, and then, as now, I resolved that efforts like these I would never relax until, if God spared my life, I should see the last stone in the fabric of Mormonism overturned, and Mormon polygamy counted among the sins and follies of the past. His literary work accomplished, my husband returned to Salt Lake City. Looking back over the past, our missionary life and our faith in Brighamism seems like a dream. So difficult is it for us to realize that we ever submitted our souls to the slavery of the priesthood, or placed any credence in that mass of folly, superstition, and licentiousness known as Mormonism. During all his efforts to obey counsel and build up a kingdom, my husband I know never ceased to love me. For the misery which he then, in, as I firmly believe, his conscientious endeavors to live his religion inflicted upon me, I have long ago freely and fully forgiven him. I think that during all that time he never ceased to entertain the fondest affection for me, and, if he was foolishly confiding in those who he believed were divinely authorized, and speaking by inspiration, can I blame him when I remember that I myself was actuated by the same faith? It was impossible to obliterate utterly the education and influences of a whole life's experience. That wall of partition, polygamy, which separated my husband from me for so many years, is now forever broken down. But the effects of Mormonism will, no doubt, though unconsciously to ourselves, tinge the whole of our future life. We can never forget the past, the mournful sympathy which, according to the poet at Perry at the Gate of Paradise expressed, over the sins and sorrows of humanity, might, with a slight variation, be applied to our own lives. Poor race of men, said the pitying spirit, dearly ye pay for your primal fall. Some traces of Eden ye still inherit, but the trail of the serpent is over them all. The terrible effects of our religion will, I know, follow us to our graves, but that temporary alienation has, I think, like the quarrels of lovers, only made us still dearer to each other. And now, happy in our family circle, with our children growing up around us, untainted by the fearful superstition which embittered and wasted their parents' lives, we feel that in them is our greatest blessing, and thank God that we have lived to see the day when our greatest ambition is, by every effort which lies within our reach, to aid in undoing that work which we spent the best years of our life in endeavouring to perform. END OF CHAPTER 43 In the preceding pages I have endeavored to present to the reader the story of my life's experience in Mormonism and polygamy, and to place before him a truthful picture of the doctrines and practices of the saints. Much has already been written on this subject, much that is in accordance with facts, and much that is exaggerated and false. Hitherto, with but one exception, that of a lady who wrote many years ago, and who in her writings so mixed up fiction with what was true, that it was difficult to determine where the one ended and the other began. No woman who really was a Mormon and lived in polygamy ever wrote the history of her own personal experience. Books have been published and narratives have appeared in the magazines and journals, purporting to be written by Mormon wives. It is, however, perhaps unnecessary for me to state that notwithstanding such narratives may be imposed upon the Gentile world as genuine, that they were written by persons outside the Mormon faith would in a moment be detected by any intelligent saint who took the trouble to peruse them. Two objects influenced my mind when I first proposed to write this volume. In the first place I earnestly desired to stir up my Mormon sisters to adjust sense of their own position. I longed to make them feel as I do, the cruel degradation, the humiliating tyranny which polygamy inflicts. I wanted to arouse them to a sense of their own womanhood and adjust appreciation of those rights and duties which, as women, God has conferred upon them. I was anxious that they should understand and know the inconsistency and folly of that superstitious faith by which they have been so egregiously deluded, that they might learn to hate and loathe the falsely named celestial system of marriage, and rising in honest indignation and disgust against the tyranny of the oppressor, break asunder the yoke of bondage, cast from them forever the moral, religious, and social fetters wherewith they are bound, and walking in the light of truth, assert their perfect equality with their sons, their husbands, their fathers, and their brethren, and henceforth claim and occupy that position which God assigned them, and which by right is theirs. In the second place I was anxious to enlist for them the sympathy of the Gentile world. Most strenuous efforts have been made, large sums of money have been spent, and secret intrigues as well as open and honorable negotiations have been carried on for the purpose of obtaining admission for Utah into the Union, under the title of The State of Deseret. The name Deseret itself is taken from the Book of Mormon, and is said to signify in the Celestial Tongue a honeybee, wherefore it is that the escutcheon of Utah territory is a beehive, and to grant that name Deseret alone would be a concession to Mormon superstition. Out here in the valley of the Great Salt Lake we are perfectly aware that, with Utah once admitted as a state, it would be almost impossible for Gentiles to live peaceably and safely among the Mormons, and of this fact their leading men and their official organs have repeatedly boasted. With Utah as a state, and Brigham Young once more Governor, the enslavement of the people to the priesthood would be complete, and the cruel bondage of polygamy would be riveted a thousand times more firmly upon the unfortunate women. I was anxious therefore to attract the attention of Congress and the nation at large to these facts, that thus when Mormon bills and Mormon petitions replete with falsified statistics, and perverted, and in many instances utterly untrue statements, are presented to the national legislature, neither the representatives of the nation, nor the nation itself may be deceived thereby. These were the two objects which I proposed to myself in writing my own experience as a wife and mother among the Mormons, and I trust to some extent at least I have realized them. I have told my story simply but truthfully, and as far as was possible I have endeavored to tell it all. Some facts I have had occasion to relate, so horrible and repulsive, that a person unused to Mormonism, and unversed in Mormon doctrine and Mormon practice would find difficulty in giving credence to such things, and yet alas they are all too true. It is only right that I should add that in the conduct and publicly expressed opinions of Brigham Young and many of the leaders there have been such disgusting atrocities and such impure statements that for the sake of decency and propriety I dared not even mention them. For this supracial very I feel assured the reader will not blame me. In all that I have said I have most scrupulously kept to the very letter of the truth, I have neither exaggerated nor concealed, and in every respect my great endeavour has been to act with the strictest impartiality and justice.  From the day when I linked my destiny with that of a Mormon missionary elder to the time when, after long weary years of trial and endurance, I abjured the faith of the modern saints, I suffered a constant martyrdom. Poverty, self-denial, and suffering I gloried in when I believed myself the humble instrument in the hands of the Almighty for proclaiming the fullness of the gospel to those who were walking in the darkness of unbelief. The trials of a missionary life were to me a pleasure. I bore with gladness the cross, believing that hereafter I should exchange it for the glories of an eternal crown, and I think even now I should never have wearied of that life of devotion, so great was my faith and my religion. Had the leaders of the church remained steadfast to that simple gospel creed which we were at first taught was the evangel of the latter-day dispensation, but when polygamy, that accursed thing, that offspring of deceit and licentiousness, came across our path, darkening the way and blighting the affections, the hopes, the whole life of every true woman among the saints, when polygamy came casting its foul stain over all that was holy, crushing out from our hearts all that was good and pure and heaven-born, degrading our womanhood and embittering existence itself, when its dark shadow, like the gloom of the deadly oposs, brought death of the soul and the withering of the heart's true love to all who came within its influence. Then my faith began to waver, my zeal to wax cold, and in anticipation and subsequently in realization of the cruel wrong which that system could inflict upon the affections and life of a wife and mother, I endured daily a trial of my faith, a moral and spiritual martyrdom such as I trust my readers may never experience. Not a day passed but what more and more evidence of the wickedness of the system and its cruel debasement of woman's nature was brought beneath my observation. Whatever came in contact with it, whoever fell beneath its influence, was the subject of immediate loss, men, women, and children alike suffered from its effects. The innocence of childhood was sullied by its contamination, girlhood and youth were degraded and disgraced. The fair sweet dreams of virgin purity were marred by its presence. The ideal of love, pure, faithful, holy, heavenly, which God himself has implanted in the heart, was rudely trampled upon and perverted and destroyed. The lives of wives and mothers were but the record of outrage, cruelty, and wrong, or else the deadening and blasting of every holy impulse and every tender emotion, while men themselves were brutalized and debased. The husband became the Lord and frequently the tyrant and the despot, and the wife was either the toy of the hour or the drudge who looked after the children, but never the cherished companion, the help-meat of the man. Such was the influence of polygamy, such the results of the celestial order of marriage. Contrary to the laws of the land, contrary to the holiest sentiments of the heart, contrary to the divine teachings of heaven, that system still exists. It is a disgrace to the national government. It is a reproach to civilization. It is a blot upon a fair escutcheon of the world's greatest republic. And yet visitors will come from Utah and will tell you that the Mormon women are happy in polygamy, for it is a part of their religion. Never, until new hearts and new natures are given to the women of Utah, and all that is womanly and pure and sacred, is crushed out from their souls, can one single woman be truly happy in polygamy. They may say so publicly, they may for their religions' sake tell strangers that thus it is, but listen to them when they are alone among themselves. Read, if you can, their hearts, and mark the bitterness which they try to stifle there. Nay, see upon their very features the handwriting which bears witness against their assertion that they are happy, and which proclaim to the world the sorrow which they vainly try to hide. I set forth this little book with many earnest prayers and many heartfelt aspirations, that my Mormon sisters may be benefited thereby. Out of the evil which man originates, God alone can produce good. And I trust that my feeble attempt to portray the cruel wrong which polygamy inflicts upon the women of Utah may excite the sympathy of every man and woman, whose influence may avail to hasten that time when this relic of ancient barbarism may be utterly rooted out before the advancing civilization of the age. The night, the gloomy night of superstition, cannot last forever. Already there are signs of the coming dawn. The time I trust and pray will not be long delayed when the veil shall be removed from the eyes of the enslaved men and women of our modern Zion, and they shall cast aside for ever the yoke of the priesthood. I trust that I shall yet live to see the day when Mormon wives and mothers shall awake to a sense of their position and responsibilities, shall understand that God never required that their womanhood should be degraded, their love crushed out, and the holiest instincts of their nature perverted. I trust to see them assert their inalienable rights, their womanly prerogatives, their very birthright itself. I trust to see them shake off the slavery of that cruel superstition which has so long held them captive. I trust to see them take their places side by side with Gentile matrons, the honoured wives and mothers of the men of Utah. I trust to see that dark shadow banished from their features, banished from their hearts, banished from their lives. I trust to see them free, full of love for them, my sisters, my friends, the companions of my life hither too, whose religion was once my own, whose hopes and joys I have shared, whose sorrows and trials have also been mine, with hopeful prayer I lay down my pen and present my labours to the world, and if my humble efforts shall have conduced, even in the smallest degree, to keep one's sister from entering into this sinful order, if they shall have aroused the women of Utah to investigate the foundations of their faith, to calmly and impartially consider the iniquities of the system of polygamy, to renounce the man-made slavery of the celestial order, if I shall be found to have awakened in the minds of thinking men and women a hatred for the licentious doctrine which enslaves the wives and daughters of the saints, if I have to any extent enlisted active, practical sympathy in their behalf, I shall feel that my endeavours have been abundantly rewarded, and that my labours have not been bestowed in vain.


Hello everybody, welcome back to another Adobe Premiere Pro CC 2021 tutorial this one I'm going to show you how to draw and animate a Circle and this works for any shape, but we're going to use a circle because well Why not so here we go the first step here is I've got some footage here Stock footage of this gorgeous puppy having a nap here is newt needs a little bit of a boopin But if case you're not sure where to boop him we're going to draw a circle around his nose Okay, so the next step here is you want to go to your tool here or to your toolbar bar to me and Select on the ellipse tool the chances are is you're going to see the pen tool Just left click on that hold down and then drop it down till you see the ellipse tool from there I'm going to click on the middle of his nose or her nose Now left click and then I'm going to hold down the alt and the shift key and this basically makes a Proportional circle now I grant that this now is a little bit off of the screen, but that's nothing to worry about I'm just gonna go get the selection tool here, and then I'm going to center it around this puppy dogs nose So this is the booping target right now the next step is I'm going to go ahead and increase the size of the The length of the circle so that it actually goes for the whole duration of this short clip Now we've drawn the circle you will notice here that on the left side under your effect controls panel For me I have a stroke selected and no fill the chances are that if this is your first time doing this You're gonna have this fill and you're gonna have no stroke what you need to do is you need to left-click on stroke I'm gonna left-click on stroke that applies the stroke to the edge I've gone ahead and increase the stroke width to let her know let's go with 15 So we've increased the stroke width to 15 So I've gone ahead and adjusted that and then I turned the fill off so we have a red circle So just so you guys understand that is how you make the circle with Nothing inside of it. Okay. Good now the next step is we need to animate it and we want to make it so that the circle draws itself and Normally you do an animation in adobe after effects But if you don't have after effects or you're not really good at it Or you just don't want to use two programs when you can maybe use one Here's how you do it you want to go to your effects panel here Then you want to go to video transitions normally you would look under effects But it's not there. It's actually under transitions and then there's a couple of them But the one that we're looking for is a wipe and in particular. It's an inset or the regular wipe I'm gonna use the inset so the video transition is called inset. I'm gonna drag and drop that on To the top image and when I do that the circle disappears I'm gonna left-click on the image so you can see what's happening and when I go down here You're gonna see somewhere in here. It should show you the The transition but if not, you just double-click here on the transition double-clicked on the transition You can set the transition duration, but I'm just gonna leave it at its default for now and then now watch I'm gonna hit spacebar and It drew a circle around the snoot So that's how you do it from front to back guys if you have any questions or anything you want to learn Just leave me a message and I'll make a tutorial for you. Thanks for watching. I'll be back soon


So, welcome back everyone, I hope you enjoy the fish break with the nice animated GIFs. So for the next step, we need to start organizing more, right? So and the nice thing is, is that in this case, we have three dimensions, right? So we have the dimension, which is the type of fish, so the fish name, then we have different lakes, and we have these lakes measured in three different years. So we have a really nice kind of 3D matrix structure, right? So we can use 3D and 4D and 5D matrices in R, and I think that this data set is a really good example on why you should want to use a 3D or a 4D matrix. So a little bit more organization using a 3D matrix. So since we have three very clear dimensions, I'm going to use these three dimensions and put all of the data into one big, one big more or less variable, right? But first we have to put missing values in, because having a zero there is not accurate, right? That you, if you, if you think about fishing and they did electro fishing, so they probably got a lot, but not seeing a fish in a certain lake doesn't mean that they're not there. It just means that you haven't observed it, right? So a question to you guys is, if we have 19 lakes and 26 types of fish and three different years, how many NAs do we need to put in? And it's a, it's, it's one of these questions that when you want to make a matrix like that, you need to, you need to kind of figure this out beforehand. So the way that I did it is make a nice three-dimensional matrix, right? So first I'm saying that get the NAs. So I'm first going to make a single vector with all of the values that I want to put in this matrix. And initially I want to make an empty matrix. So I'm going to say repeat NA, take the length of F names, so the fish names that we previously defined, then multiply that with the length of the lakes and then multiply that by three, which is the number of years that we have. And then I'm going to use the array function. And the array function as the first parameter takes the content. So those are the NAs that I just defined. And then we have to specify the three dimensions that we want to have. So my first dimension is going to be the name of the fish. The second dimension is going to be the lakes. And the third dimension is going to be time. So that's just three. And because it is R, we can use names. So we can name or we can give row names, column names. And then to the other dimension, we can also give names. So I'm just going to say that, well, give them names. So use dim names or dimension names is a list. And the first element of the list is the names of the first dimension, which is, of course, F names. We have the names of the lakes. And then I combine 2017, 2018, and 2020 to have them by name. And this creates a three-dimensional matrix, which we can now query. Of course, we have to fill it first with the data that we have obtained. But I think that this is a really good example of why you would want to have a three-dimensional matrix. And this will simplify our code a lot. And we will see that in the end. Three-dimensional matrix, three different dimensions. We have a fish dimension, a lake dimension, and a year dimension. And by putting it in a 3D matrix, we can kind of switch between dimensions very easily by using things like the apply function. The apply function can also use three different dimensions. But first, let's fill it up. So what kind of fishies did we get? So of course, what I'm going to do is just say, well, I'm going to make a for loop for f in fishy name. So f is fish. Then we are going to say for l in lakes. So l is the current lake that we're looking at. And then how am I going to fill it up? Well, I'm just going to say fishy, which is the three-dimensional matrix. For this fish, for this lake in 2017. And now I just have to compute how many there are. So I see that I still use the old structure here because I put this in a function, right? So we had this fix names function. But the slide is not updated. So it just uses the gsub because I didn't figure out until yesterday evening that there was also this i, i, e error in there. But what do we do? Well, we just say, well, take from f 2017, where the lake is this. And then we're going to grab the fish name in the fixed names that we created, right? So I'm just going to take all the whole column with fish names out. And then I'm just going to say greppel. And greppel means do a grep. So match the fish name that we have against all of the names in this thing. And then we're going to do that for 2017, 2018, and 2020. So greppel is at the L here stands for logical. So if I do grep, it will return to me 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. So all of the indexes of the rows that match. But when you use greppel, then it just gives you back a true false vector. And since we want to combine it, right? Because I want to make sure that I get only the fish, which are in the lake that we're currently looking at because we have a double for loop. I need to use the L greppel function, right? Because of the ampasson here. So this gives me back a true false vector. This gives me back a true false vector. And of course, where both elements are true, this is a fish which lives in the lake that we are currently filling. And then of course I'm going to ask which and then ask length to get the number of fish that were in this lake in 2017 having the name F. So F is the fish name. I had the G sub here to standardize from this as set to SS. This returns a true false vector.  And so we get a which true true false. And then we go from having a vector which has true and false to the indexes. And then from this we just ask the length because those are the number of fish that we caught at this lake with this name. And now we can see or this is the first real example where we can really, really easily use this three-dimensional structure of our matrix. And so the first dimension is fish type, right? So I'm going to say, let's see what we dragged up. So I'm just going to calculate total fish, right? So total fish will be the total amount of each fish species that we used. So I'm going to apply to our 3D matrix where I standardize the third dimension to be 2017, right? So this goes from a three-dimensional matrix where we select or where we fix one of the dimensions. And then so I do comma, comma. So first dimension anything, second dimension anything, the third dimension needs to be 2017. And then to this matrix which I get, so we go from a three-dimensional kind of box to a two-dimensional matrix. And then to the first dimension, compute the sum. And do this again for 2018 and do this as well for 2020. And I'm just going to row bind these together because here for each of these dimensions I get a vector. So I bind these three vectors together and then I'm just going to put the row names on there saying that, well, this was 2017, this was 2018, and this was 2020. So when I do type total fish in R, then this is what I get. And now we start seeing something interesting but also something which worried me a lot because we can see that sometimes some fish have very low observation numbers. So if we look at the first one at the Hecht, then in 2017, across all of the different lakes that we had, we fished up only 56 of them, which is not a lot but enough for statistics, right? But in 2018, we only observed 18 of them. And 18 is not really enough to start doing statistics, right? If you want to get like reliable statistics, you want to have like 30-ish observations of a fish. For example, the Eucalype is even worse. In 2017, there were only two of them caught across 24 different lakes. So statistically speaking, we can't say anything about this fish. Funnily enough, in 2020, they actually caught 324 of them. So in 2020, we have more than enough statistical power to say something about this Eucalype but we can't compare the 2020 Eucalype catches to the 2017 and 2018 ones. So species dominance and catchability of bigger fish, larger fish are harder to catch with electrofishing gear. Yeah, but you can't tell me that you caught 320, but in the two years or in the years preceding to that, you didn't catch any of them. And we'll get back to that because for example, the cow bars is something that you can't do any statistics on these numbers. The Steinbein, again, you have 37, which is enough in 2018. But you have to remember that these are summarized across all of the different lakes, right? So that means that a lot of lakes will have no Steinbeiser being caught. But some of them are really good, right? The Rothauga and the Barge, they have really good numbers. So these are fish species that we can do statistics on. But on the other ones, these are really hard. In 2020, we can do statistics on the Eucalype, but we can't do any statistics in 2017 and 2018. The nice thing is we can do the exact same thing for lakes. And the code only changes in one position. I only change the one by a two. Instead of saying, give me the sum of the first dimension, I'm going to say, give me the sum of the second dimension. And that's it. And the rest of the code changes the same. I'm just changing the dimension. And now it gives me the lake overview, right? So in 2017, in the Cothamster Cork, 40 fish were caught. In 2018, 46 fish were caught. But in 2020, 360 fish were lifted out of this lake. And here we see this issue coming in, right? So this is something which, statistically speaking, is really, really hard to deal with. Because the number of fish caught per lake are so different, we probably can't compare some lakes from one year to the other, right? We can't compare the fish that were caught in the Cothamster Cork in 2018 with the fish that were caught in 2020. Because the total amount being caught is so much different that the percentages, right? The percentage of fish is also going to fluctuate heavily. Because in this case, being one fish out of 46 in this lake means that you are at x%. But here, if you catch one of them, then one of them is one out of 360. So that is less than 0.0 something percent. While here it is like 2% of the whole fish he's caught. And here it's like less than a third of a percent. Fortunately, there are some lakes where we have relatively stable numbers and relatively high numbers, so we can look at that as well. But this is relatively difficult to deal with statistically. And yeah, there are some things that you can say about it. But it's just difficult. But fortunately, we have at least three lakes here. But the question here is, do we want to deal with fish numbers? Or do we want to deal with things like fish percentage? Like 5% of the fish in this lake is a barge. Or do we want to say 47 fish caught were a rote auge? Because that's something very fundamental in the analysis. If we deal with numbers or if we deal with percentages, we'll change the whole downstream analysis. So that's something that we want to investigate. But the first thing that we have to do is define what we find is enough observations. So we want to select fish that are fishy enough. So we have enough observations of them. And the thing is that we want to just recreate our three-dimensional matrix based on some of the filtering parameters that we have. And we want to make space for a group which is called other, because if you don't have enough observations of this fish, we don't throw it out, because it's still a fish that we caught. So it still contributes to the total number. So we have to define this other group and every fish that is not fishy enough, right, where we have too few observations, this whole fish species, we just merge into a group which is called other, or side catch, or whatever you want to call it. So the way that I did this is just first figure out which fishies are fishy enough and which lakes are lakey enough, so to speak, right, because we need to know which fish are consistently measured at high numbers and we need to know which lakes are consistently having a large number of fish in there so that we can do statistic. So we load the data again, we compute how many fish there are in the other group and we can easily do that because I'm just gonna kind of shrink my 3D matrix. I'm gonna create a new 3D matrix which is smaller, but we already calculated the total number of fish per lake, right, so we already have this variable called total lake which has these numbers of how many fish there are in total for each of the years. So I'm just going to load in the data again like we did before with the double four loop, leave the other group empty and then the other group is going to be filled by just computing saying that, well, we know how many fish were caught in this lake in this year and then we're just going to subtract from the just newly recreated and reloaded matrix the sum of all of the fish that were in the groups that we deemed to be okay. So first we want to filter right and create a new 3D matrix. So we want to have some numbers saying that, well, above this number, I'm happy with the number of fish and above this number, I'm happy with the number of fish that we got from this lake. So I just chose 30 and why do I choose 30? 30 is the number that you need to do correlations with. So if you want to do correlation, a reliable correlation estimate is when you have 30 observations of x, 30 observations of y. So that's why my general rule of thumb is that if you do something and you're not sure which kind of statistics you can use, right, if you are very certain about what kind of distributions you have, you can go lower. But for me, right, I just saw this data set for the first time. So for me, it seemed logical to say, well, a fish species for which we have 30 observations at least for every year, right? So for every year, I want to have to, I want to have seen the fish 30 times. So that's in this matrix, right? So here we would say that barge is good enough because every year we saw at least 30 of them. But the hecht is not good enough because in 2018, we only saw 18 of them. So that's below 30. And this is that in the back of your mind, you have to keep in mind that there are many different lakes. So even by demanding that we have observed the fish 30 times, it could still be that we'd run into a situation where we have one fish observed in a single lake. And then in the other lake, we see 29 fish. So, but for me, 30 was kind of the rule of thumb that I applied. So I'm just going to say, well, I'm going to create fishy enough, a variable. So I'm going to apply to the total fish, just say, well, which ones are above 30? And then I'm going to apply through the columns all, right? So I'm going to say for each of the columns are all of the values above 30. And then give me the names because the names are the names of the fish that I want. And then of course, I'm going to add a new fish type, which is called otter. So we have fishy enough to combine with otter. And then of course, I'm going to do the exact same thing for the lakes. So again, here, I'm going to just take the total lake when there are more than 30 fish observed in a lake consistently across all of the three years. So all of the three years need to have at least 30 observations and then give me the names of the lake. So I'm just going to then create my 3D matrix, right? So I'm going to say, well, make a new 3D matrix. Here we have the content. So of course, we're going to fill it with NAs again. So let's take the array, do the NAs and now the dimensions have changed because we now have on the one dimension the fishy enough plus the otter group. We have the leaky enough. So the lakes, which have enough observations. And then again, we still have three years. And then of course, I'm going to add the names to it as well. I'm going to refill the 3D matrix. I'm just going to do the exact same double four loop that I had. So I'm going to say four F in fishy enough, four L in leaky enough. And then I'm just going to reload it the way that I load it again. And then of course, I have to compute how many fish were in the otter group. And fortunately, we have already computed the total lake. So I'm just going to say for each lake in leaky enough, take the total amount of fish caught in this lake in 2017 minus the sum from the matrix that we just reloaded. And then this is of course, the number of fish in the otter category for this lake in 2017. And the same thing I do for 2018 and 2020. All right, it's this clear. Let's make sure that my R code is at the same point. So I can show you the notepad window as well. Yes, so it's just the same code. So we load in the data files, get the latitude and longitude, make this table and then do the F-lol where we have the nice plot which we can overlay on Google Maps. Make the 3D matrix, do the total fish, do the total lakes, and then we define what is fishy enough, what is leaky enough. And then the first conclusion is, is that we have enough measurements for around eight fish species and around 11 lakes. So we can use 11 lakes and we can use eight fish species which are consistently measured at high enough amounts to start doing statistics on them. So let's remodel our data. And then I'm just going to use the exact same code as I did before. This is just a copy paste and then I'm going to fill in the other group. So let's just select all of this all the way to the top and then switch to R and then it'll take a little bit of time and little bit of time, little bit of time. So it's reloading the data, calculating, making the nice plot, filling in the fishies. Then we have here all of the observations and then we do the same thing again and then we compute the other. So now when we look at fishy, it looks like this, right? So now we have our, so we have our species. So here we look at the 2017 dimension. Here we have the species. So barge, rood, auge, all, schlei, braze, roodveder, noistacherlich, gibbel, gibbel, and then the other. And then here we have the lakes and of course we have the exact same thing for 2018. So we kind of reduced our data set. We can still see that there are issues here, right? In 2018, we only observed one rood, auge, in the Cothamster Colk and 41 fish which were not of any of these types that we had. So that's a little bit difficult as well to deal with but that's one of these issues with real data. Real data is always having these kinds of challenges. But for example, we can see that in the Visor de Meir, the barge is the most dominant species with 109 caught in 2018. And funnily enough, in the Visor de Meir, if we look at in 2017, we see that although barge was the dominant species, we also caught like rood, auge, and brazei, and roodveder. So that's a little bit strange because we didn't catch any of these fish species a year later. So the consistency of one year to the next year is very strange. It doesn't seem very unbiased, but we'll have to look at that more. But that's the way that I treat my data. So I'm just going to kind of minimize the number of, or not the number of dimensions, but I'm going to reduce each of the dimensions to dimensions which are having enough observations so that I can do something with it. Right, so conclusion using 30 observations for fish, 30 observations per year for a fish, and 30 observations, we have enough data on eight fish species and 11 lakes. And then it looks like this for 2017. All right, so we also want to compute the percentage of fish caught, right? So for each of the species that we have, we want to make some plots, we want to make some pie charts, we want to visually see how many fish we caught and how much percent of it was for, so how much percent of a certain fish was something versus how many percent of the other ones. So what we can do is we can calculate the percentage of total fish for each species, right? So how much bars did we caught out of all of the fish that we caught? So the percentage is of course defined as having 100 times the sum of a certain fish dimension type and then of course, divided by the total number of fish caught, which is the sum of the sum of the fish dimension, right? So here we see first the sum of the first dimension of the 2017 matrix, so we take out 2017 and then we do the same thing. So we take out 2017 again, first dimension compute the sum across the different rows and then we sum everything together. So this is just the total number of fish. And I call this P fish, so this is for pie chart. So have when I want to do a pie chart visualization, I can use this P fish to do the plotting. And I do the same thing again for the lakes and the only thing again which changes is just changing the dimension in the apply function. So instead of looking at the one dimension, which is the fish dimension, here I'm looking at the second dimension, which is the lake dimension. The mathematics doesn't change, the code doesn't change. The only thing which changes is instead of having a one, we now have a two because we wanna look into the second dimension. So let's see the results from the first dimension. So I make a pie chart, right? I use the nice colors that I got already and I say plot the fish, say that this was done in 2017. So in 2017 we can see that the majority of species that we caught was barge and road fader. The giebel was kind of one of the lowest ones together with the owl and the schlaya and the braze. But we see that there are three or four fish species which are caught in relatively high amounts. So in 2017 we caught a lot of barge, a lot of road fader, a lot of road auge and some noi stachlinger. Then we have some minor fish species and then we have the other group which just contains all of the other fish that we caught. Of course I can do the exact same thing saying now use the pea lake and here we see the contribution and I'm using 2020 here for the lakes, right? So we can see that in 2020, the lake which gave us the most fish was the Keysteig Brellinge and the Cothamster Colk and the Steadorfer Bacherzee are the three lakes which are more or less having kind of a large amount of fish taken from them. And we see here that the Meitzlerzee is relatively minor. So not a lot of fish were caught there. But that's just the way that it is. Of course we can do the, oh that's way too short. See, that's always what you get when you do a presentation then if you do it for the first time then you might run through your slides way too quickly. So I was actually expecting to spend like 40 to 50 minutes on this part, but I actually only use 27. So let's do some questions so far or remarks or discussion because you guys probably have your own ideas about how you would want to approach a problem like this. Faya, no, no, no, we still have part number three. So, but this is part number two and I went through it way too quickly. We're not gonna do firearms yet. We could do because then I'm home earlier for my birthday and I can eat cake again. But I do think that it's good that you guys ask some questions, right? Because like, he just doofed it. So any questions? Do you think using a 3D matrix is good or would you say, no, I would just use the F 2017 variable or I would use the F 2020 variable, right? Because we started off having three different variables have which we also use to fill it. But I try to always kind of gather my data into one big data structure where I have most of the interesting properties that I want. And the nice thing is that it actually helps you a lot with coding, right? So like here, what we saw is that they just changing the dimension has so just changing the one by the two will give you the same analysis but in this case it's just done properly, you know what? But there's of course a lot of different ways that you could do this, right? It's not that this is the only way to analyze it but have for me as a statistician I always hammer on sample size. Because if you catch one fish from a lake then of course this fish is not going to be representative for all of the fish in the lake. If you catch five of them, is that going to be representative? When having a lack of enough sampling data for a lake or a fish species, would it make sense to group them? Group what? Lakes? So take two different lakes and group them together or treatments because let's show this table, right? So let's look a little bit at this table. This is the kind of fishy data for 2017. So if you look at the lake like Lomar, right? The Lomar lake we caught 82 Neustachlicher, right? But for example in a lake like Cothamster Colk we caught zero. Here we caught like 30 fish in the whole lake. Here we caught around 90 fish in the whole lake. So in this lake, right? If we just assume that we did a good job, right? And we caught like a random sample from the lake which is the underlying assumption of all statistics is that you randomly sample then we would say that we cannot merge Lomar with Cothamster Colk because in Lomar like almost 90% of the fish living there are of Neustachlicher. While in Cothamster Colk, 0% of the fish living there are Neustachlicher. So we can't just kind of squeeze these two things into each other and say, well, because they are different things, right? They are different lakes and you can only merge lakes when they are similar, right? And that's just the way that it works. If I have a lake and I just throw in like 500 turtles, then of course this lake will now be different from a lake which has no turtles. And I can't group a lake with turtles with a lake without turtles. That's statistically, that's very, very shaky saying that I'm going to just group them all together. We will start grouping of course because that's part number three is to kind of see how we can... All right, let's assume that Hopples and Lomar are managed by a fishing club XYZ and we should have made an implock horse by a club ABC. Yeah, so let's see Hopples and Lomar. So Hopples and Lomar, they might be similar, right? Do you see that in 2017? Let's look at the whole thing, right? We can actually do that relatively easy. Let me switch you guys to the R window and let's look at fishy, right? So you are saying that you want to look at the lake called Hopples. So let's take Hopples and take Lomar. Hopples and Lomar. So these are then, so in 2017 we had 24 rotaugen, zero for Lomar. We had Neustachlinger, so Neustachlinger are apparently in 2017 the dominant fish species. But a year later, the Neustachlinger apparently are not the dominant fish species anymore. The dominant fish species in Lomar is now the rotveder and in Hopples the dominant fish species, the brazen. A year later, Neustachlinger are the dominant fish species in Hopples. In Lomar the rotveder is still the dominant species. So can we group these lakes together? Statistically speaking, I don't know. Let's take one year, right? Let's analyze this, like let's say 2020, right? Let's do a correlation between these two lakes, right? Just say correlate them together. Then you can see that there is no correlation in 2020 between these lakes. So if there's no correlation between the fish that you got in the first lake or in the second lake, then of course we can't group them. These are two lakes which are completely different, right? Also we have to deal with the fact that there is a lake effect. One lake might have like very high CO2 content. Another lake might have very high nitrite content, right? And this might have an influence on the type of fish that live there, right? The thing that you have to remember is you can only group things together when they are similar. And similar generally is defined as not being different. And not being different is something that we can statistically test, right? We can do a statistical test saying is this lake different from the other lake? If we do this test here, right? So if we just say core.test, then I have to actually separate them out because it wants to have two of these. So give me hopples and then give me, right? Then it will tell us that new. These things are very, very different statistically speaking, right? There's a non-significant p-value. In this case, a significant p-value means that they are equal. So hopples and Lomar are not equal to each other. So grouping them will not work. And if you would just group all of them together, right? And you would write a paper and you would submit it to a journal. If the journal would send it out for review and one of the reviewers would be a statistician, it would just, they would just reject your paper and saying they are putting things together which do not belong together. So you're putting apples and pears and then assuming that you can put apples and pears together and then analyze the taste, right? And then compare that to when you put apples and bananas together and compare the taste. So every lake is a single experiment more or less, right? And having multiple lakes means that you do the same experiment multiple times and you can group these of course when you have some indication that they are equal. So one of the things that is striking here is that these lakes, or hey, if I would just take one lake, right? So are we recording? Yeah, we're recording, no worries. And Twitch saves it as well, right? Not the core, but if we just look at the Lomar Lake, right? Not 2020, look at all three dimensions, right? So if we look at the Lomar Lake, then we see that 2017, 2018 and 2020, we see that there is a big shift in the lake, right? We go from having Neustachlinger being the dominant species, almost 90% being caught in 2017. In 2018, this picture flips totally around. Now, a road fader with more than 90% being caught is road fader. And in 2020, we see that it's the same thing. So if we would do a correlation on this thing, right? So we would just say correlate and then in theory, of course, since we have very few values, because we're having three vectors, which only have a length of nine, we can't use Pearson correlation. But just for the sake of argument, let's use Pearson correlation. If we use Spearman correlation, which is actually the one that we should use because we have a limited sample size and we don't wanna be sensitive to outliers. If we use Spearman correlation, then we see that 2017 is highly correlated to 2018. But why is it highly correlated? It's highly correlated because most of the fish species do not occur in any of the years, right? So it seems that they are relatively well correlated while they are actually not that correlated, right? So the real correlation estimate for 2017 versus 2018 ranges from like being as low as 6% correlated to being as high as 96% correlated. Yeah, so this is a massive issue of zero inflation in this case, but the Pearson correlation will give you the lower bound estimate and the Spearman correlation will give you the higher bound estimate. But if we just look at the data kind of from a distance and we would look at them, we would say, well, Lomar, the lake in 2018 is probably groupable with the lake in 2020, right? Most of the dominant species didn't change. So it's just that we caught a little bit more Neustachlinger in 2020 than we did in 2018. But the data here is relatively consistent in a way. But 2017 doesn't belong there. So we can't even, if we compare the fish population in 2018, then we cannot really use the fish population in 2017 to compare it with because it's very different. So we kind of have Lomar Lake 2017 and then we have Lomar Lake in the other two years. In the other two years, you can group together, most likely. But the 2017 is probably not something that you can group together. But in this case, you can formalize and we'll do that in like the next hour. We can formalize when we can put these things together and how we can kind of analyze them a little bit. A little bit better, right? But I didn't make any conclusions from this. You know what? We still have some time left. We're going to do three slides, which are after the lecture and then I'm going to show you guys the break. So let's switch back to the PowerPoint. So the number of fish percentage caught by year, right? So let's do a pie chart and I'm just doing a pie chart again. So I'm just calculating the, taking 2017, go across the rows, take the sum and then take the sum of the whole thing. So let's take the sum of the sums. So this is just calculating the percentage for the different years and making a nice pie chart out of it. So you can see that from one year to the other year to the other year, there is a big, big difference across the lakes. So across all of the lakes in fish population. So you go from having a massive amount of road fader to having even more road fader to having only 25% road fader. So it's the dominant species in 2017. It's the dominant species in 2018. But in 2020, it's all of a sudden not the dominant species anymore because that is actually the barge. If we do the same thing for the lakes, then we end up with something like this. And now we start seeing what the issue is. The Steadorfer Baggersee contributed less than 10% to the total fish amount in 2017 while almost 40% of the fish caught in 2018 came from the Steadorfer Baggersee. So the impact that this lake has on the total amount of fish is changing year by year. And of course, that means that we can't really start doing any of this grouping because we would just be looking at like, how well did you fish a lake or how many fish did you pull up from a lake compared to all of the other ones, right? If you're fishing, like if you have two lakes and in one year you fish the first lake and in the second year you fish the second lake and in the third year you fish both of them, then of course the years are not comparable to each other at all because you can't compare the first year to the second year because you did a different lake and you can't compare the second year to the third year or the first year to the third year because in the third year you fish two lakes and in the other years, you only fished one lake. So the conclusions that I wrote down for this is that there are significant differences in fish composition per year. Are these due to fishing the lakes differently? And that is yes, in different years, the same lake was fished differently. As such, the contribution of a lake to the total amount of fish varies a lot between 2017, 2018, and 2020. This means that probably we are not allowed to draw any conclusions across years and across lakes, unless we limit ourselves to a single lake. But even there, we run into issues, which we saw in the Lomar situation, right? Where the situation in 2017 is just completely different than the situation in 2018 and 2020. So it is really, really difficult because this massively hurts our power to detect any global changes in fish stocks across the years, right? And of course, are there solutions? Yes, there are solutions. And we can limit ourselves. We can say, well, we only look at one lake and one fish species at the same time. But we run into different issues then later on. But that is always the case in experiments like this. Statistically speaking, it is better to limit the amount of lakes that you fish and just fish more in the lakes that you're looking at than to fish in more lakes, which are different and just have lower number of fish from each lake. And if you do multiple years, if you wanna compare your data from year one to year two, you should make sure that you do the same thing every year. Right? If I am working in a lab, for example, we have the same issue. If I am, for example, using a certain chemical in 2017, and I read you my experiment in 2018, but now I use a completely different chemical, then of course I cannot compare the results from 2018 to the ones from 2017. So there are some significant drawbacks in these kinds of experiments that where you look at different lakes, you fish each lake differently across the different years. And statistically speaking, this causes a lot and a lot of issues with having these things. Like because every new thing that you do, every treatment that you add, every lake that you add, adds another dimension to your data, which means that your total amount of measurements just gets subdivided and subdivided and subdivided into smaller groups. And in the end you end up with a single fish in a single condition, in a single lake, in a single year. And of course a single measurement is no measurement. You have to have at least 30, 40 measurements before you can start calculating things like means and ratios and standard deviations. And if I wanna do statistical testing, then that is kind of the important part. All right, so first three slides, then we will go back three slides and we will take a short break unless there's more questions or more remarks. If there are not, then I will see you guys in seven, eight minutes, probably 10 minutes, so just after four we'll continue and then we'll do the last part of my initial look into this Bajase project data. So see you in 10 minutes. Let me stop the recording.


What if I told you all of these legendos are accumulated in roughly 5 minutes? You would think I am crazy. That I might be but I am telling you the truth. Today I bring you quite possibly the best new legendary farming spot which requires no backing in and out. How epic is that? How's it going guys? My name is DP Jen. I'd like to thank you for stopping by and checking out the video. If you do enjoy it leaving a like really helps out and subscribe if you want more Borderlands 3 videos. Also people I am giving away copies of Borderlands 3 to win one simply make sure you're subscribed to this channel and have that bell notification button ticked. Drop a like and a video and leave a comment down below. Ok so this is an offline legendary farm. I think you know what I mean by that but if you don't here is a quick rundown. If you want to do this and farm hundreds possibly thousands of legendos per hour quit out of Borderlands 3. Make sure the game isn't running in the background force close it down then disconnect from your internet. Console players can just go to network settings and go offline. Once done load Borderlands 3 back up. Once in you need a few things to make the most out of this farm and did I mention people this doesn't require you to keep backing out either which makes it even more badass. I may have told you at the start the show I can't remember I am tired and I got a cold. Ok so the things you need are Croyol weapons if you have a grenade too which deals Croyol damage it makes things much better for yourself. So once you're loaded up on Croyol weapons and if you can build your class up with a relic which offers luck good on ya more legendos for you. So once set up head to Eden 6 and load into the ratios canopy. Once in follow the route I take on screen now to your point of destination. So once you are here you want to make your way up these steps and prepare for something quite bizarre. With your Croyol grenades at hand or weapons whatever shoot this jabber. Using Croyol damage effects for some reason makes them duplicate look crazy. The more hits you get the more the little bastards spawn and people I mean it's literally infinite. It's beyond crazy they just keep on coming. My build with Zen allows me to regen grenades so for the most part I was killing them with my shotgun getting out of loot then grenade a few others to make them spawn more and more and just doing a constant loop for about 5-10 minutes and the results were utterly crazy. This is by far the most fun I have ever had farming legendos and the fact you don't have to keep loading in and out is amazing too. It's the new best legendary farm for me in my opinion.  The save point is literally just 30 feet away. Oh yeah guys have some fun I know what I am doing all night long. And on that note we have come to the end of the video if you guys enjoyed it even the like rule helps out if you're new around here and want to see more birdland tree videos be sure to subscribe and if you never want to miss a video or upload it you can turn notifications on by hitting that bell button but guys thanks as always for stopping by hopefully you enjoyed the video and hopefully I will see you on that next one.


Sam here with latent sports cards. We're ripping 22 tops 5-star baseball hobby 8 box case break number 25 random teams Here's a look again at your random results As always you can find those on the website under the results tab as well as the link in chat It's good luck here everybody See what we got Clearly been chasing a judge from 5-star. Oh, I guess we need to judge this break We need a Yankee a Yankee for sure because it's me Regina's PC I'm a Yankees fan. We need a Otani for max or a trout for max Got our case hit We've got rookie auto Joe Ryan for the twins Pull the Lewis Hamilton orange not like the base but like one of the grand prix That was probably the biggest and a total wolf orange auto nice one there Minnesota Then we've got a Pentamers penmanship Salvador Perez 11 out of 15 going to the Royals there you go Jonathan Q with KC Congrats, buddy. Stop, dude. Even people touch this. Don't people touch my stuff Crazy there is good good stop there JQ JQ stay around stick around really quick, too We've got a sunny gray 5 of 25 stick around JQ Nice one there for the Reds and going back to Jonathan Bobby with junior rookie auto not numbered Congrats, buddy back-to-back awesome hits. There you go, man Nice Bobby with junior get that mag for a JQ. We like to see there, buddy We've got Curtis Terry rookie auto for the twins. It's got this team It's the first one. I've seen of these right here got going to Shelby M with the Cardinals. How about a mark McGuire and Paul Goldschmidt dual Five of ten both on card as well, man.  That's so true Yankees legend sony gray. That's so awesome. Congrats on that Shelby. No recap on this one guys It is all hit so That's a Jackson co are going back to the Royals, man Grats on that I think it released last week James Nice one there and going to the Astros 14 to 15 Jeff Bagwell silver signatures Nice one there H town mark Elk Congrats mark One of the killer bees with those throwback Gold Astro jerseys. There's a rookie auto of Gavin sheets Has it been out for yeah, it might have it might have been two weeks ago it released That sounds more like that sounds more like it. There's an Eddie Murray 73 out of 75 going to the Orioles Richard V with the O's I'm not from Houston actually J. I do like I do. I was a big fan of BGO and Bagwell and Berkman back in the day though Like they were the first team when I was little I really started to like There we got a redemption So we'll do that second we got a bloody senior to 50 going to the Nationals There you go max nice one there by way of the Expos Congrats on that nice bloody senior top James James. All right. Let's see. Come on, baby. I'll see a big redemption here five-star base autograph of of Jaron Durand going to the Red Sox nice one there Boston. That's gonna be Nick see with the Red Sox Two boxes left. Good luck everybody. There's a Manor Vera rookie auto job Jonathan killing it with the Royal spot. That's a fourth hit for the Royals nice one there and For the White Sox silver signatures Eloy Jimenez 32 out of 40 I don't think so no two Saturday games. That's a worm was saying it's up KJ Hey, thanks James appreciate that man. I think these are 255 a box now What's your uncle's first name and last initial James? I wonder if I recognize them appreciate appreciate that James He's been in a few breaks. Thanks, man Chris s sounds familiar. I think I know if it's the Chris s. I'm thinking of there's definitely a good chance That I recognize it Dylan Carlson 60 out of 75 I know right Carl brutal dude for the Cardinals Matt Chapman Not numbered going to the Blue Jays come James number two James is it is Chris is it ST is T the second letter? Nice one there. We'll do it for the break. Thank you guys again for the fill next up We've got five the next case of five star