{ } = word or expression can't be understood
{word} = hard to understand, might be this

You will recall that we ended last time on the decision of the Supreme Court, saying that the Latter-day Saints could not claim any right as a corporation for charities or religion, and it would be dissolved.

I have to, before leaving the whole Mormon story--as far as we can cope with it--I have to add two more remarks. One, that the -- president and elders of the Church of the -- the Latter-day Saints, on the basis of this decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, drew up a declaration in which they solemnly abandoned polygamy. So we have here a -- an interesting interplay that the decision provoked inside a church in this country a change of one of the most central rules. So you see, it's a great study, of course, as to the meaning of religious liberty. And that here, the church group, in order to -- not to lose the fruits of their labors of the preceding 60 -- 50 years, simply said, "All right. We will change our religion." Because it was a change of religion. Obviously polygamy is not a -- a matter that is at the outside of a religion. But it's at the very heart.

And so I think this is never mentioned, that we have here, I think, the only group in the United States, any religious denomination, that in a solemn declaration has -- went back on its own tenets under the pressure of the secular government, or faced by the consequences of the arm of the government. And this I think is memorable, because as soon as the Mormons decided to cut off this one article of faith, the people of this country granted statehood to Utah with the understanding that the Mormons practically would be in power there. And they have been from then on.

And so you see the -- this has never been called a compromise. I don- -- not quite know why. I think in the last 60 years, people just haven't looked deeply enough into the -- story of the sects and denominations in this country. But it's a unique case. We have avoided Islam in this country. And it would have been Islam. And the main tenets of Islam and of the Mormons was: no drink and many wives. That is, they turned around -- you see, all tribes, to -- all primitive people--or not all, but many--had monogamy. But on the other hand, they all needed for their political cohesion some narcotic, some liquor, some higher spirits as an expression of their belonging. The -- one nation will have beer; the other will have wine; the other will have vodka. The -- Hindus will have rice. It is underestimated in this country that a people needs some expression when they are high, when they are feeling good. It is not a moral question, wine, but it is simply the articulation of our being beyond the natural. I think we talked about this before, when we talked about Prohibition.

I only at this moment -- like you to consider that in the founding of these nomadic religions, fitted for footloose people who come from a very primitive, inarticulated background, Mohammed and Brigham Young--or Jo- -- Joseph Smith for that matter--transformed the rules. Monogamy plus liqu- -- liquor -- or--I prefer the word "spirits" because it was felt to be inspiring; it's quite something serious--they changed it around into polygamy and sobriety. As you know, a Muslim is not -- allowed to drink wine, you see. But he is allowed to have more than one wife.

I think it is significant that the Mormons fell upon the same remedy: to change the two tenets around, with regard to women, that is, love; and with regard to enthusiasm, which is the inspiration. And therefore, the relation between the married life and the enthusiastic life--again I would like you to begin to think, to consider--is not accidental. There is an intimate relation between the three stages of man. At work, we are individuals. That's the American approach to psychology, that you take the rational individual. In love, we are passionate. But when we are enthused, and willing to sacrifice our lives, we are inspired.

That is, love -- the life of -- which we do when we love, which we lead when we love, is to the second degree higher than that of the rational being. And the life that we lead when we are inspired is to the third degree higher, because it entails the willingness of -- renouncing our own life.

There was a -- to -- to show you the inroads of modern technologists and psychologists in this -- on this ground is a story that I was told about a movie on Bill Mitchell. Bill Mitchell, as you know, took the -- a battleship and a bomb test -- for a bomb test. And since he had at heart that the United States should become a mighty -- power with regard to planes, he wanted to prove that the old-time battleships were completely obsolete, because they could be bombed out of existence by one bomb from the air. At that time, this -- there was the -- the dread- -- dreadnoughts -- the so-called dreadnoughts, 40,000-ton battleships were still afloat. You may know that they have all disappeared. That at this moment, the -- the -- Bill Mitchell has won the battle, and neither the British Navy nor any other navy care any more for these dreadnoughts. They just are gone. He knew this in 1928, and he wanted to prove this point. Of course, all the brass was against him. And so he took -- it was allowed to try it.

When this was put into a movie, the producer said, "Let him have a heavy drink before he goes out, so that you see how excited he is, and that he must strengthen his hand, you see, by getting drunk first." Fortunately the author of the script resisted manly. I don't know how the battle came out. I only know from this writer of the script that there was a terrible tussle.

This shows you the infamy of a society in which the rational man -- parades as though he was the normal man. Obviously, when we beget children, when we marry, we are not in the state of working men, with an apron; and we are not in the state of -- when we are -- inspired and risk our whole life on proving a point, willing to -- to perish, you see, in the -- in the experiment, we are not to be prodded into this artificially, by drinking, you see, by getting drunk first. The -- drinking is only an expression that when a whole group is together, at a wedding meal, or at a march out to the battle, for their unanimity. But the individual, as in our movies, who drinks hastily some hard liquor is to be dismissed as a -- as a -- unworthy individual.

And drinking is not something for the solitary. And in this country, drinking is such a sin and crime, very often, because people think that everybody drinks, so to speak, alone. And many people seem to drink alone. At least, that's what the movies show me. I have never -- I don't wish to -- to communicate with people who drink alone. I wish to live with people who drink only because they are together, as an expression of their common life. So that nobody drinks because he must get drunk, but because must -- he must express his enthusiasm by -- by--how would you call this?--by pooling, so to speak, you see, his enthusiasm with others. That's the meaning of -- in -- of the spirits, of -- of any national drink, as an expression of the enthusiasm by which these people will be willing to die for the cause -- be it their tribe; be it the fatherland; in Bill Mitchell's case, the future of the United States.

And so it was quite im- -- improper for this movie tycoon to insist that Bill Mitchell, who, after all, had this heroic perception of his responsibility, to make him drink alone. This is the misunderstanding into which I run in this country all the time, that drinking should be related to the individual. But we do not drink spirits alone. If we do, that's sin. I can say this. I mean, you must get drunk alone, then you are a sick man. But the s- -- that doesn't mean that at Holy Communion we must have raspberry juice. The Lord at the wedding of Canaan transformed water into wine for this very reason: that at a wedding, we have to get up high spirits. The bride and the bridegroom usually are in pretty low spirits at such an occasion.

I thought I should leave this with you for further elucidation, because this is the -- makes of course my story about the people, and the public, and the masses perhaps only -- first have -- understandable to you. Enthusiasm makes it -- possible for one man to act for the people, and as people. That we call usually with the -- with the rather frightening expression, "He has a heroic attitude." But any soldier in a trench, resisting enemy -- gunfire is in such a position that he is the country. You cannot put a policeman behind a soldier. You cannot put a guardsman behind a soldier. He is the United States of -- of America at that

moment. This again is not known here, with this contempt for the military people, never care to think who a soldier is. A soldier is the United States at this spot. The whole of the United States. And there's nobody else, you must always think. If the -- if the few boys in Berlin run away, out go the United States.

People have no imagination, because you are so brought up in this fantastic idea that here are 175 -- million Americans and there is the so-called -- overall organization, a dead corporation--I don't know what it is--above it. No. You are the United States in all moments of inspiration. And you are marriage -- the marriage life in the moment into which you make love, because all your children are already--if you really love--entailed in the process, because you take the consequences upon you. You live through eternity. You found a new nation, if you really love. It isn't just sex or passion. And therefore, these people have offices, voluntarily.

Again, this is not understood. People don't think that when -- two people marry, they begin just as much a new nation as Abraham did when he married. Every one of you who marries doesn't know whether he stays -- can stay in this country. Perhaps you have to emigrate to another country, where -- where -- are no people. Your offspring obviously is assumed. And the legal protection which one or another nation can give you -- us, that is not the meaning of "people" -- of course. When I came to this country, after all, with my family, we were still the same family.

But here is the fiction that when you marry here, you are inside America, and one American who marries another American. That's not a good marriage. The test of a good marriage is that you will be able to -- the wife will be willing to follow her husband outside this country just as much. If she isn't willing to do this, it is only a half-marriage. And if she go -- has to stay in South -- California, it's only a quarter of a marriage. Yes, that's a conditional marriage. That's not surrender. You must see that marriage is unconditional.

So every one of us occupies these three positions, alternatingly. And hence, I think the tenets of the Mormons bring out the -- the real conflict of the 19th century, that since all the laws seemingly were only secular, and only looking to the individual as a writer, educator, a workman, farmer--individual, in other words--the laws of marriage and the laws of enthusiasm were -- remain inarticulate. And when they are rearticulated, as with the Mormons, the -- they tried strange ways.

And therefore the relation, I think, between polygamy and -- and spirits is something that we are faced with today seriously. The Islam people -- the Moslem, go Christian in many ways, because they have to industrialize. And

Islam is just incapable of industrializing a country. It's just incapable. It's impotent in all these respects. And the whole Arab question is -- of this Christian heresy is today: how can the Arabs give their women rights? And the problem of the Arab is not legion, is not the Arab -- not the Arab sta- -- states -- this ridiculous business of Mr. {Kassim}, or Mr. Nasser, or all this. Don't pay any attention to this. The real problem of the Arab people is today monogamy and the rights of women, because they still are infected with this -- with this business of polygamy. And the -- what in -- what happened in Egypt, the one great event of the last 50 years in Egypt is that the queen of Egypt, the -- the wife of this last king, Farouk, divorced her husband and went home to her father. That has never happened in the history of -- of Islam for 1300 years. She divorced him, you see.

And the second great thing is, when in Algier, a friend of the -- in Morocco--in Casablanca, as a matter of fact, only three years ago--there died a friend of the Arab cause a liberal Frenchman, the editor of a newspaper there. And he was so loved by the Moroccans that at his funeral, there suddenly appeared 1,000 Arab women in front of the -- cathedral, marched in, took down their veil -- took down their veil in the Christian Church, and mourned at the bier of this Frenchman.

This is the -- you see, a change of religion for an Arab country. And I mention these two facts, because of course they are never mentioned in this country, and they are the only important things that now at this moment move the Arab world to their -- its depths, because that is a change in the social order. And in this sense, I say this, because you can now perhaps understand why the Mormon attack on our order of things, you see, is of the same depth; and also, however, of the same rationale, so to speak, you see. It is based on a situation of a primitive society in which the mighty group of the Latter-day Saints could not allow the enthusiasm to be anywhere else placed except with the elders and the president. The inspiration, so to speak, had to remain central. And if you allow drinking, you see, you get groups; you get every -- give every {housewife} -- the same right of receiving direct inspiration.

So when -- when Mohammed wrote the Koran, and asked everybody to repeat the suras, the chapters of the Koran, you see, in the prayers--just as the psalms are prayed by the monks today, weekly, you see--all the suras, he had to exclude all new inspiration. And he did this, you see, by making the Koran immune against new inspiration by this wall of dryness, you see. All the people had to stay dry, so the only en- -- source of enthusiasm would be this boring book.

So spirits and enthusiasm have very much to do with each other. If you are -- have a religion in which the text is unarguable, in which nothing can be

added, they have not even sermons, as you know, in the mosques--just the Koran is read, and prayer given--then you have to protect this central authority through the ages against the outburst of new fervor, of innovation. And that's a way how -- as it -- was -- done. And I always suspect the people, the Methodists and so -- others who do not allow drink in their congregation, that they are afraid of the boredom of their own revelations, that they feel comp- -- competition, fear competition.

Because the drink taken in -- in -- in hilarious, cheerful groups together has -- has never done anything -- anybody any harm. It's just an expression of the enhancement of the mood, and of good thinking, and good feeling. Of course, if you mistake drinking for ba- -- saloons, you see, where 10 sinners, everybody ge- -- get drunk as soon -- as quick as possible, that's a complete mistake. But then you can of course also mistake marriage and prostitution, you see. There is a -- has been California, or somewhere, a city ordinance, you see, in which it was said that all sexual intercourse between males and females in the city was strictly forbidden, married people excepted.

Which just goes to show, when you judge a -- the social order from the behavior of individuals, you will never -- be able to explain neither love or enthusiasm. Never. And therefore, enthusiasm today is pooh-poohed in this country. I just got a book a few days ago, The Martyr Complex in American History, written of course by a lady. And -- she should be pilloried, to call the -- the sacred people to whom we owe our freedom and our existence, to call them -- "complexes." The title in itself is offensive. "The martyr complex," destroying our gratitude to these people, and her gratitude, of course, in the process. But to enthusiastic people, we owe everything we are at this moment, here. That I can teach here goes back to the enthusiasm of former ages. And if we are here prosaic and boring, that's our mistake. The institution has come not from work, gentlemen, and not from -- gathering money, but from enthusiasts.

But today it is the fashion to say that we can live all a rational life without enthusiasm. You can; but then you owe all your existence to those people who have been martyrs, or have been heroes on the battlefield, or have done something against their own -- and unenlightened self-interest. All these modern utilitarians and psychologists, and so, they want to tell you that we can only live only by will. Enthusiasm, however, is identification. A man who is enthusiastic identifies himself with future generations, and does this for them, you see, as though he -- his life didn't matter. And that's to be laughed at?

But that's the state of affairs we have reached in this country today, that people are put in lunatic asylums, because they are enthus- -- enthusiasts or martyrs.

And therefore, I think the Mormons teach us a very serious lesson. The Mormons are the last religion in this country that was still able to settle in groups. It is the last people's movement. All the immigrants who, after the Mormons, so to speak, as a movement, collapsed, came to this country after 1880, came as individuals. There has been no longer, you see, a group, a church, a covenanted settlement. And that's a very serious business. And I think that led finally to the end of immigration, because individuals are not the proper kind to settle in a new country. You have to come and to attach yourself to groups, to a community, to a church, to a cause.

And the first 15 years of our life in this country has been -- has been spent in avoiding the academic hard-top road, where you cannot put down roots, and to move out in the solitude of the countryside, where you can live still with people and not just be a brain, and a -- a mind in a classroom. I think immigration into colleges from -- is impossible. You cannot immigrate into -- into the University of California. You have to be already an American. Then you can go to the university. You see, this takes -- these are two different steps.

Therefore the Mormon experiment is -- is I think a -- important turning point in American history, because they, as the last, when they took possession of Utah, showed how one should and must immigrate. One must immigrate in groups. I know it hasn't been done. But the result has been wou- -- what? That these droves of immigrants then clung to their own, old families--take the Sicilians, with all their mafia customs, and that they were hanging back. The Return of the Native. In order -- if you cannot immigrate here, you see, you'll form a cluster outside the beehive, and feel that you still belong elsewhere. This is the difference between individuals coming to this country and people coming from -- moving through this country.

All the settlement of -- even on the Oregon Trail, you see, those hundred of thousands of people in the bandwagon, they grew together as a people, as a group, on this long journey, overland journey of half a year. And that's strict discipline. They had of course a leader. And in war, you found new people. And the Oregon Trail was just a -- a warlike enterprise, you see. It was a campaign. And when you arrived, you see, here, these people were knitted together. They knew each other well. They knew for what purpose and what office everyone was fitted. And when they had to elect the mayor of Sacramento, it was quite natural that they would elect the man who had led them on the -- on the wagon trail.

This cannot happen to a man who is -- lands in -- in Hoboken, or in New York, and -- alone, you see, with three dollars in his pocket. He -- the only thing he can do is try to get work. So he enters only in this indirect manner into this

country. And of course, he will write nostalgic letters back home, and will bring the whole clan finally over, in order to have somebody to lean on.

And I think -- I never see it expressed that the immigration before the Mormons found commu- -- founded communities on this side. Whereas the later you come in immigration, the more the backsliding, you see -- the moral backsliding of the human soul has to set in, because these people are not able to be completely, you see, digested. And to know how many cities there still are, where the grou- -- national group forms a tight-knitted community of its own, you only have to look -- go to Los Angeles itself, to see it; or you go to Buffalo with its -- 300,000 Poles. This is not the -- it's the opposite kind of immigration, { }. Because they -- 300,000 Poles are as different as can be by now from a -- you see, from a viewpoint of their American activities. The only thing that bind them together is the background on the other side of the shore, and that's -- of the ocean, and that's not a really valid, you see, allegiance.

So this means that an irreligious, secular immigration is only coping with half of the problem of the immigrant. The Mormons therefore were so successful, because they offered, besides work, profitably -- employment here; also this people-satisfaction of being on the right path, in the right direction, of being a religious group. If you don't do this, you must expect this reverse thing, that the people, you see, here have met.

When the Second World War broke out -- I may give you a stringent example--a striking example, I should say--four miles from us there is a little railroad crossing. An ugly town, 8,000 people--yes, 8,000 people--White River Junction. One of the ugliest towns on earth. It has a strong Italian minority. And we of course had a col- -- have a college with an Italian department, romance language department. And they have courses on Dante, et cetera. And not one man in this college knew, when the war broke out, that there ha- -- came out four miles from this college town, a paper every week in Italian, devoted to the praise of Mussolini. And it so happened that we fell out with Mussolini. And he went to war against us. You know, he declared war on the United States. It's quite interesting. It's never mentioned in our --. In the World Almanac, I found that neither the declaration of Germany, nor of Italy, you see, to the United States in 1941 is mentioned there. But the fact is that Hitler and Mussolini declared war on us. We didn't declare war on them.

And -- now imagine! Here is a patriotic college town and four miles from this, there comes out a -- a -- a paper each week with the headline, "{Viva il duce}." And this were war -- we were at war, you see. So then I went to the president and told him about it, and something was done. And of course now the editor is a -- one of the leading men in the American Legion.

But this is -- you see, what happens. People get stuck. If you only take the working man, the rational, the profitably employed man, the man of the career into your -- into your bosom as an immigrant, you only solve half of the problem. You take him as an individual in the public, but you don't take him as a member of his people.

And perhaps you begin to see that the distinction which I asked you to make is a very profitable one, because most political problems are not visible as long as you try to think of this country as a list of 175 million individuals, you see. You cannot immigrate to this country in this shape, in this form. And you cannot live here, either.

To round out the picture of the Mormons, I -- let me say that at this meeting of minds in 19- -- 1836, when the people who were not Mormons, in Missouri, wrote this moving, you see, statement, that they knew they had no right to expel the good Mormons from their county, but they begged them to go, that this was successful. That in a -- answer, the -- Joseph Smith and the elders accepted the motion of this meeting. And there was a committee appointed to look into the business, and to help the Mo- -- the departing Mormons with money. And I think it's a -- in this sense, a glorious story, because in a way the reasoning process of 1836, and the success of the decision of the Supreme Court in 1889 are one and the same caliber.

Both worked miracles. In 1836, this Marshall Plan, this help of -- for -- to these unwelcome people--if they would depart, people would be of assistance, you see, and would look after their interests--this brought the Mormons to their senses, and they gave up the claim that this was the promised land, which they had said, you see. This was -- God-given; they had to stay there. And they suddenly find out that perhaps the God-given land might be elsewhere. And so one dogma was given up, that the revelation that had sent them to Missouri could be changed, could be altered. And the second is that when polygamy was declared in violation of the Constitution of the United States, the Mormons found suddenly that they could abandon this maxim, this pre-Christian order of society.

And I wished you could see that all actions of good will, through all times, are simultaneous. It makes no difference whether they are in 1836 or in 1889. Historians are prone to think because something is separated by 60 years, one event from the other, that they do not belong to each other. That's not true.

In li- -- seen in the proper light, it is important for me that I should have told you first about the decision of the Supreme Court and its consequences, and now only show you the good outcome of the -- of the plea of 1836, because in the

light of the later, you may perhaps understand that when people act, are able to make peace, peace is a possession forever. And that's the meaning of the -- the Fif- -- Fourth Commandment, that our sins are visited to the fourth and fifth generation; but our good deeds last to the thousandth generation. That's not a meaningless phrase, gentlemen. It is simply true. It is simply so. A thousandth generation meaning eternity, for good; it's settled.

Today nobody seems to pay any attention to this differentiation that of course, God cannot help when we make mistakes; they are visited on our children. If you marry the wrong woma- -- man, of course the children will show it. And then they will die out perhaps in three generations or two. That's there. You have done it. But if the Mormons now become an essential part of American society, as they fortunately are, this is owed to the good sense -- in these both cases: in 1836, they weren't annihilated. They could have, at that time, you see, killed every one, and there would have been nothing left. And in 1889, they were told under what conditions they could have statehood.

And as I told you, it is very interesting. There was a revulsion of feeling in the United States after this decision, and everything had -- that had been said against the Mormons suddenly fell flat, and people all found -- begin to find all the good virtues of the Mormons. And today, as I think you will admit, when people speak about the Mormons, they speak very well of them. And that has come all about by this reconciliation, you see; good will was shown, so to speak, on both sides.

The second story of a religious -- a religion going in for secular conquest or settlement, is the story of the conquest of Oregon and Wash- -- state of Washington. At that time, of course, the name "Oregon" was a very indecisive thing. It meant the British -- the coast up to Vancouver, and from -- from the Russian River in -- in California. There was no California at that time as part of the United States. We are moving in the year of the Lord 1830, and -- it is then 15 years before California awakens any interest, and it is 30 years -- 29 years before Oregon becomes a state. And at that time, there is not even a territory. Oregon is wilderness.

And there appeared a great proclamation at the Wesleyan University in Connecticut, in Middletown. I think that's the place where Woodrow Wilson was president before he became president of -- of -- of Princeton.

"A Great Proclamation: Missionary Intelligence. Hear! Hear!

"Who will respond to the call from beyond the Rocky Mountains? { } Editors. The communication of Brother {G. P. Disoway -- Disosway}, including one from the {Wyandot} agent

on the subject of the deputation of the Flathead Indians to General Clark"--Clark of the famous Lewis and Clark expedition--"has excited in many of his section intense interest. We are for having a mission established there at once.

"I propose the following plan: Let two suitable men, unencumbered with families and possessing the spirit of the martyrs, throw themselves into the nation"--here you see something about martyr complex--"and possessing the spirit of the martyrs, throw themselves into the nation, live with them"--the Flathead Indians, that is--"learn their language, preach Christ to them, and as a way opens, introduce schools, agriculture, and the arts of civilized life. The means for these improvements can be introduced through the fur traders and by reinforcements with which, from time to time, we can strengthen the mission. Money shall be forthcoming. I will be bondsman for the Church. All we want is the men. Who will go? Who?

"I know one young man who I think will go, and of whom I can say I know of none like him for the enterprise. If he will go, and I have written to him on the subject, we only want another. And the mission will be commenced the coming season, where young and unencumbered, how joyfully would I go, that this honor is reserved for another. Bright will be his crown, glorious his reward.

"Affectionately yours, Wesleyan University, March 9, 1833."

Now this great proclamation was signed by Dr. Fisk, then-president of Wesleyan University.

The thing was stirred up by the rumor that Flathead Indians had come to Independence, Missouri, in search of the white man's book. That is the Bible. And this made a great impression, that here were Indians wanting to find out what made the white man tick. And they had seen of course these men handle the Bible; and so the rumor had spread that this was it. And this moved, of course, the Christians here in -- at the -- on the Eastern seaboard to great contrition, feeling that they hadn't done enough, if it had already reached the stage that the Gentiles asked for the book and nobody offered it to them. So -- there ob- -- obviously had been very precious time lost.

Now, the call came from beyond the Rocky Mountains. And just as Utah at that time was separated from the settled part of the United States, you see, by prairie land, by non-settled land, the significance of this mission of the Methodists is also in the fact, I think, to be found that you had to move across country, you see, where there was no American organized country. And so you went through no-man's land in order then to organize beyond it. This was the original, bold claim, and I'm sorry to say that Oregon in this sense was earlier on the

map in the East than California. This is 1833.

The man who went, whose name I think should rank with -- in your mind with Joseph Smith or -- or Brigham Young is perhaps known to some of you. His name is Iaso- -- Jason Lee. He was born--and that shows you the s- -- unsettled state of this country--in a place in the north of Vermont which he thought was on Vermont territory. But in fact, it's later clear that it was within Canada. But that at those -- in those days doesn't seem to have made much difference. It's -- it's Stanstead -- Stanstead, Ontario. He's also buried there where he was born, after his defeat in this whole enterprise.

Was born in 1803. The call comes to him in 18- -- in 18- -- 1803, he -- he's -- the call comes in 1833. And I think it's quite important for you to consider that he began to study for the ministry when he was 26. I wish that nobody was allowed to study for the ministry before he's 30 -- 26. You see, we are plagued with teachers and ministers who are children when they take up teaching and -- and ministry. And so our profession is dishonored, and weak, and anemic. You shouldn't become teachers for -- when you leave college. That should be forbidden. That's not the business of young people to teach. You can instruct, and train; you can become a football coach and what-not. But to teach is not the business of people who haven't seen some ac- -- something of the world, obviously.

I think that's -- one other disease of the rational man. Since you think that man does everything by will, you think he can will to teach. But teach -- teaching is a process of maturing. And it cannot be done by schools, or te- -- teachers' seminars, not even by the great white elephant of Teachers' College, Columbia. It's idiotic to think that people of 20 can teach, or should teach. There are exceptions. You can teach something. I have taught Latin when I was 14. But that's not teaching. That's instructing; it's training. But I think all our talk about American education are just ridiculous, because nobody wants to change the status of the teacher. Everybody wants to make these children un- -- violently happy. It won't work. With you -- if you don't change the whole recruiting of your teachers, you can never reform American education. And it won't be done. It's just all talk. Instead of blue pigs, they will bear red pigs, these children. { }. That's all you can change. The textbook may be -- be paperback bound, instead of this binding, I mean. All these wonderful reforms that go on now in our schools never touch the center, the core.

Now Jason Lee was an exceptional man, because he had done other work in life before he took to the ministry. He was 26 when he decided this; and at 26, of course people were very serious, because they were already meant to be serious at 14 in those days. Today you are asked to be childish at 35. But -- Stonewall Jackson was 28 when he died, and was a general. That's always forgotten. Of

course, you look at his big beard, you don't know that he was only 28. And -- that is, people were very anxious to mature. And I think the case of Lee is one of a real statesman. He then accepts the challenge of Mr. Fisk and goes out. Let me turn -- to be exact to my notes; -- sure I don't know this all by heart.

He had just been ordained an elder and a deacon in his Methodist Church. And on June 14, 1833, he was elected the head of the Flathead County -- Country mission. And nobody knew much about the Flatheads. They were tol- -- called Flatheads, because in their initiation, they had to undergo, you see, a ritual of -- of pressing the skull in such a way that no mind was left.

Now the next date I think is of some importance, to show you the investment of these pioneers. He left -- left Independence, Missouri, on April 28, 1834, and he arrived at Fort Vancouver--Fort Vancouver is of course at Portland, the fort--on September 15th, 1834.

That was quite a record. That's only how many months? Four and-a-half, is it right? Or five and-a-half? Four and-a-half months. But that's, I mean, from -- from our point of view I think more you s- -- than you spend in Europe.

He arrived at Fort Vancouver, settled, then on the Willamette, northwest of Salem. Anybody who knows Oregon will know that Salem is south of the Columbia River.

Now the vicissitudes of this man are rather breathtaking. He first starts this mission. But already in 1836--that is, barely two and-a-half years later--he meets a man from the navy, a paymaster from the navy who had been sent there to explore the coast. And they get talking and they say -- see that this is not a -- a -- very promising to convert these Indians there. The -- the British are on the verge of claiming the country. And they agree that the only way in saving the country for America is to bring out American settlers. That is, the interest shifts from Indian mission, you see, in a, so to speak, foreign country, to the appropriation of the country as a part of America, which it isn't, at that time. And I think this shows you this same necessity that drove the Mormons to the founding of the state of Utah, instead of building this little square mile of a city, you see, in -- in -- at first in Ohio.

So lo, and behold, he drew up -- Jason Lee drew up a petition, which {Slaker}, the paymaster of the navy, carried then to Washington, for the establishment of a territorial government. 19- -- in 1837, an additional party arrives in June--and now comes my woman part of the story--the first, at least, item in this -- in this respect to the missionary problem of women in this country. On this -- in this expedition, there is a Miss Pitman, and already on July 16th, they are

married. That is, in the tradition of our missions, the courtship is cut out. The sacrifice a woman makes in mission work has been in numerable times that she trusts the faith, you see, of her husband, so that she will -- he will make a good husband, and goes out and meets him, you see, in China, or wherever it is, and gets married without courtship, without even -- having known him.

And this strange, you may say, identification of the act of faith, and of marriage is inherent in the missions of the last 200 years as the Anglo-Saxons have carried them on. It's the same with -- in England. I think the missions have not prospered in other countries for this very reason: that the excision, the omission of courtship is a terrible sacrifice for a woman. It is the -- you see, a -- nearly a -- impossible, so to speak, without courtship, to open the oyster. Courtship is a melting process, it -- by which people grow into each other. A great sacrifice on -- in the mission side -- not polygamy, not jealousy, not that there is another person, but that a person should, under the protection of the inspiration of faith, what s- -- Christ said, should forgo part of this life which is lived on this higher plane, you see, of -- of love.

Courtship is a serious chapter in a person's life. And I feel that you should also see that today where all these things are so to -- dying, and not really respected, where people don't write letters anymore--but get married on the spot, after 24 hours or before--that courtship makes man into -- woman into important members of society. It is -- it's the courtship by which she acqui- -- they acquire a language which is independent from their paternal and parental background. It's in courtship, in the letters that a young man writes to his sweetheart, and in her answers that they acquire that common lon- -- language by which they can acquire a common faith. You cannot expect that -- husband and wife may ever have the same religion--she'll remain a Roman Catholic, and he'll remain a Jew--if there is no courtship, because during the time of courtship, you live in Heaven. And the inspiration there, the words must carry you into your haven. And you come down to earth when you get married, after you have met in the absolute.

And I think therefore today the -- terrible misunderstanding about mixed marriages. All marriages are mixed, because all two people have two different religions when they meet. But they have one when they marry -- or they should have one. And this can only be done by courtship. And -- the lack of courtship is proletarian. And I think this country has gone proletarian in the last hun- -- 50 -- 100 years, more and more. And it has not, because the people just look at each other, are co-eds. Perhaps they write papers in college to- -- for each other. Don't know this. But there is no courtship, in the deepest sense of the word. With -- courtship means to view one's own life in light of the highest inspiration of mankind, to find one's common faith.

All the great love letters are written in this style. Now the missions and the missionaries paid this penalty. And they could -- can -- could pay it because of their religious enthusiasm. On the wings, so to speak, of their faith, the wife overcame this. And I'm going to read you next time the poem that this Miss Pitman wrote for her husband to show you this kind of substitution, that this is possible.