Mormon is only a nickname, one which can be properly applied to the members of the church but not to the church itself. The proper name is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Mormons generally refer to themselves as LDS (Latter-day Saint), not Mormon.

Jeffrey R. Holland, whose proper title is Elder Holland, is an apostle. When Jesus Christ established his church, he called twelve apostles to assist Him with His work and to testify of Him. Today, a prophet heads the earthly church since Jesus is no longer on the Earth, but Jesus Christ is still considered the head of the Church. You may recall that in Old Testament times a prophet always led God’s people. Since the Bible states that Jesus’ church must be built on the same platform as established by Jesus Christ Himself, the Mormons have a prophet and apostles to lead them.

Elder Holland began by describing the origins of the church, which began when a fourteen-year-old boy was confused about which church to join. When he read James 1:5 in the Bible, he knew he had found a solution—ask God when you need wisdom on a subject. As he prayed in the grove near his home, he received a visit from God and Jesus Christ, who told him none of the churches had the complete truth and so he must not join any of them. Later, when he was a few years older, an angel named Moroni came to tutor him in preparation for restoring the complete gospel.

There has been no question that doctrine altered and changed over the centuries and that people are in disagreement over very basic principles. Throughout history, church members would disagree over a point of doctrine and one group would leave and start a new church that operated on their own beliefs about how the Bible must be interpreted. This led to thousands of churches even within the Protestant tradition. As the Second Coming draws near, it is clear there is a need for a definitive voice and in the Bible, we learn that this voice must be that of a prophet of God. The Bible does not say there would be no further prophets after the Bible ended. It says, in fact, that God will do nothing except through His prophets.

Early in church history, there was a Protestant reformation. Many good people saw that corruption and misunderstanding had arisen in the existing church. These leaders were not prophets and never claimed to be. They were good men doing the best they could in a time of apostasy. They fought hard for their beliefs and helped to pave the way for freedom of religion in modern times, and for this, Mormons celebrate them. However, Mormons teach that a mere reformation is not enough. A restoration of all things must occur in order to get God’s church back on the proper path, and this is what the Mormons offer.

Elder Holland addressed the accusation that Mormons are not Christians with a straight-forward explanation of the topic:

“We are not considered “Christian” by some, I suppose, because we are not fourth-century Christians, we are not Athanasian Christians, we are not creedal Christians of the brand that arose hundreds of years after Christ. No, when we speak of “restored Christianity” we speak of the Church as it was, not as it became when great councils were called to debate and anguish over what it was they really believed. So if one means Greek-influenced, council-convening, philosophy-flavored Christianity of post-apostolic times, then we’re not that kind of Christian. Peter we know, and Paul we know, but Constantine and Athanasius, Athens and Alexandria generally we do not know. (Actually, we know them, we just don’t follow them.)”

A careful study of the complete Bible, not just selected verses, will demonstrate that many parts of modern Christianity are not found in the Bible. When one does not believe God is still speaking and clarifying, one must rely only on the Bible for information about truth. However, to use one common example, the word Trinity is not in the Bible. Nor is the formal definition of Trinity. This was added later in the fourth century councils to appease certain aspects of the growing religion and derived from philosophers, not the Bible. The Bible has too many instances in which it clearly demonstrates that God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are entirely unique beings, unified in purpose, not physical aspect.

Elder Holland offered the following examples that demonstrate that God and Jesus Christ are separate beings:

“We take literally at His word that Christ ‘came down from heaven, not to do [His] own will, but the will of him that sent [him]’ (John 6:38). Of His antagonists Jesus said, they have ‘hated both me and my Father’ (John 15:24). And along with scores of other references, including His pleading prayers, Jesus repeatedly subordinated Himself to His Father, saying regularly in one way or another, ‘My father is greater than I’ (John 14:28). However, having made the point of Their separate and distinct physical nature, we declare unequivocally that They were indeed and are ‘one’ in every other conceivable way—in mind and deed, in will and wish and hope, in faith and purpose and intent and love. They are most assuredly much more alike than They are different in all the ways that I have just said, but they are separate and distinct beings as all fathers and sons are. In this matter we differ from traditional creedal Christianity, but we do feel we agree with the New Testament.”

Elder Holland concluded his talk by outlining some of the basic principles Mormons believe are part of that restoration, including the knowledge that we are sons and daughters of a loving God, that God planned for the atonement in order to make it possible for us to repent and to return home someday, and that what we do in our lives matters.

“Lastly, this plan, this divine course outlined for us—including the fortunate Fall in Eden and the redemption of Gethsemane and Calvary—is universally inclusive. All are children of the same God and all are included in His love and His grace. “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” Everyone is covered, though it remains to be seen whether everyone cares. But if there is a failure to respond, it won’t be because God didn’t try and Christ didn’t come. That is at the heart of what I have been introducing to you as the restored gospel.

Read Elder Hollands Address

Terrie Lynn Bittner

The late Terrie Lynn Bittner—beloved wife, mother, grandmother, and friend—was the author of two homeschooling books and numerous articles, including several that appeared in Latter-day Saint magazines. She became a member of the Church at the age of 17 and began sharing her faith online in 1992.

Although the prophet, his two counselors, and the twelve apostles (the counselors are also apostles) serve full-time, they do not receive a salary. This is due to biblical warnings about priestcraft—the ability to become wealthy doing the work of the Church. Since most who serve in these positions are older, they often have pensions or other sources of private income, even though they can no longer hold outside employment. Those who do not receive a modest stipend which allows them to live at a reasonable standard of living, but not to become wealthy. While most religions pay their ministers and many leaders of popular churches become wealthy, a Mormon leader can only achieve wealth prior to his call to full-time service. No matter how much money the Church makes, leaders do not personally profit from that money.

Due to privacy, the church does not reveal who is receiving financial help from the church, whether it is an ordinary church member receiving charitable assistance or a leader receiving a small stipend. Thomas S. Monson became an apostle at the age of 36, an unusually young age for such a call. (He was also an unusually young bishop.) Prior to his call, he had worked in the printing industry as the General Manager of Deseret News Press. It is possible he receives a stipend, due to how young he was when he gave up paid employment, but it’s also possible his children and other relatives support him instead. He may even have savings invested that support him. How he supports himself really isn’t important. However he does so, he does not receive a paycheck or a share of the money brought in by the church.

 If a stipend is given, it does not come from tithing money. Unlike many churches, which count all their businesses as part of their ministry, the Mormons operate a for-profit arm for their businesses. These businesses pay taxes at the same rate as any other businesses. They are operated under a holding company. It is the for-profit arm that provides the stipend, so that the money donated by members is not used for salaries. The prophet does not own these businesses, nor does he receive a share of the profits from them. The profits are used to fund church work, including things like salaries that must not be paid from tithing funds.

Mormons love being part of a volunteer system. It allows them to serve God entirely unselfishly. They don’t accept service to gain a paycheck; they accept it entirely because they love God and want to serve Him and to be a part of His work. There are, of course, rewards that go far beyond anything a paycheck could provide.

Mormons normally don’t choose their callings. When a leader of an organization needs someone to fill a position, he or she considers possible names of people she knows or who might be available. She then evaluates those names, praying for inspiration, and then chooses one. She prays to find out if this name is acceptable to God and if it is, she submits it to the bishop for approval. This is done because he knows more about the person and whether or not that person is actually available for the position. When everyone has prayed and is in agreement, the chosen person is invited to accept the call. Knowing it is from God, most Mormons will accept even if they feel unqualified for the position. Of course, if there is information he or she might have that is pertinent, such as a serious family situation requiring priority, the person will ask to have that considered.

People generally change positions every few years. This allows them to serve in a wide range of positions over the years and to gain many skills. It also improves their understanding of the organization of the church because they see it from many different viewpoints. There is no promotion, so a person might be the president of the children’s Primary one week, and helping a toddler nursery leader the next and not consider it a demotion in any way. It is simply another responsibility.

The skills learned through church service often force people outside their comfort zones. A shy follower may find herself asked to lead a large women’s organization. A man who doesn’t feel organized might be asked to be the secretary—a position requiring extensive organizational skills. A person new to the church can be asked to teach a class, even though she will first have to learn the doctrines she will be teaching. As people accept positions they would never have volunteered for, they become more than they imagined they could be. Mormons believe God knows them perfectly and knows all they are capable of becoming. When He chooses a calling for them, He is often putting them into a situation that requires the growth needed to become the person God knows they can be.

From a practical standpoint, some church-learned skills later become job skills. A teenager who discovers she has a knack for teaching might decide to major in education. Someone invited to teach literacy may find it very rewarding and go on to major in adult literacy or decide to volunteer to teach it in the community once it is no longer her church work. Many who gain public speaking skills or leadership skills in church go on to become leaders in business or government. This too is part of God’s plan to help us create the life He wants us to lead.

Mormons at all level of the Church serve God happily and lovingly, thrilled to be a part of His gospel.

Terrie Lynn Bittner

The late Terrie Lynn Bittner—beloved wife, mother, grandmother, and friend—was the author of two homeschooling books and numerous articles, including several that appeared in Latter-day Saint magazines. She became a member of the Church at the age of 17 and began sharing her faith online in 1992.

A new poll by USA Today and Gallop show that Thomas S. Monson, prophet and president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is the

Thomas S. Monson is best known for his compassion for others. Raised during the depression, he remembers his mother feeding what were then called hobos. These young men, who rode the rails across country, marked the fences of people who were known to feed the homeless. Each man who knocked at her kitchen door received a hot bowl of soup and was asked only to contact his mother and let her know he was safe.

At Christmas time, the family took gifts to those in need. President Monson remembers delivering food and toys to homes, and once, as a child, provided one of his own beloved birds to give a friend a Christmas dinner.

This childhood training in compassion led to President Monson becoming as compassionate as his parents in adulthood. When he was only twenty-two, he was called to be the bishop of his congregation. A bishop is a lay pastor—the Mormons don’t use paid clergy—who does all the work of a paid minister, but has a family and secular employment at the same time. He was unusually young for a bishop, and his congregation was particularly challenging due to being larger than usual, with 1050 members, and having 85 of those members be widows.

Mormons have programs to help care for their church members who are in need. It is called a welfare program, and is administered by the bishop, usually in conjunction with the president of the women’s Relief Society. Bishop Monson, as he was then known, oversaw a congregation whose boundaries ran alongside the railroad tracks. Mormon congregations have specific boundaries and people attend a congregation based on where they live. Many people lived in basements, back rooms, or falling apart houses and it was his job to track them all down and make certain they were not hungry, sick, or in need. J. Reuben Clark, a high level church leader who helped train Bishop Monson, focused on ways to help the widows. President Monson said of this training:

“Knowing that I was a new bishop presiding over a difficult ward, he emphasized the need for me to know my people, to understand their circumstances, and, in the spirit of tenderness, to minister to their needs. One day he recounted the example of the Savior as recorded in Luke, chapter seven, verses eleven through fifteen:

“And it came to pass … that he went into a city called Nain; and many of his disciples went with him. …

“When he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow. …

“And when the Lord saw her, he had compassion on her, and said unto her, Weep not.

“And he came and touched the bier. … And he said, Young man, I say unto thee, Arise.

“And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he delivered him to his mother.” [Luke 7:11–15]

When President Clark closed the Bible, I noticed that he was weeping. In a quiet voice he said, “Tom, be kind to the widows, and look after the poor.’” (See Thomas S. Monson, “The Bishop, Center Stage in Welfare,” October 1990 General Conference Address.)

Each year he took a chicken, obtained from a local farm, as his personal gift to each of the widows for their Christmas dinner. He promised to speak at each of their funerals, and he did, even though by the time some died he was an apostle and constantly traveling the world for the Church.

President Monson’s sermons frequently dwell on the importance of individual responsibility toward those in need. He advises church members to look for ways to serve without waiting for an assignment. This focus on service is one of the reasons he is so highly admired, both within and without the church.

President Monson was unusually young for a bishop and he was also unusually young for an apostle. Apostles are called to their position for life, just as they were in the time of Jesus Christ. Thomas S. Monson was only thirty-six years old when he became an apostle. The Church has twelve apostles, following the pattern established by Jesus, and a First Presidency, consisting of the prophet, who is also the President of the Church, and two counselors. The senior member of this group becomes the new prophet on the death of the current prophet. He selects his own counselors.

President Monson first served in the First Presidency in 1985, giving him many years of experience under three presidents before becoming the prophet in February of 2008. He is the sixteenth president of the church.

Mormon leaders are, as mentioned earlier, lay leaders, so they have private sector experience in most cases. President Monson graduated from the University of Utah in Business Management. He taught there as well and later received an MBA from Brigham Young University. He served in the Navy near the end of World War II. He was a General Manager for Deseret Printing until he became an Apostle.

President Monson is married to the former Frances Johnson and has three children, eight grandchildren, and seven great-grandchildren.

President Monson has served in many capacities in the secular world and in 1981, he was appointed to the President’s Task Force for Private Sector Initiatives, serving under President Ronald Reagan. He remained on the task force until its work was complete. He has also been a member of the National Executive Board of the Boy Scouts of America.

In April 2008, shortly after becoming the prophet, Thomas S. Monson offered the following promise to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:

“With all my heart and the fervency of my soul, I declare that God does live. Jesus is His Son, the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh. He is our Redeemer; He is our Mediator with the Father. He loves us with a love we cannot fully comprehend, and because He loves us, He gave His life for us. My gratitude to Him is beyond expression….

I pledge my life, my strength in serving Him and in directing the affairs of His Church in accordance with His will and by His inspiration.” (Thomas S. Monson,” Looking Back and Moving Forward,” Ensign, May, 2008.)

Terrie Lynn Bittner

The late Terrie Lynn Bittner—beloved wife, mother, grandmother, and friend—was the author of two homeschooling books and numerous articles, including several that appeared in Latter-day Saint magazines. She became a member of the Church at the age of 17 and began sharing her faith online in 1992.

It had been a long time since I had heard people speak proudly in public about God and our relationship to Him, both individually and as a country. Yet, for the weeks and months following the attack, people came together in a profound and touching way. We remembered God. We remembered all He has given us, the protection that He had offered so many times, the strength He continued to offer. We found comfort in Him and in each other.

After a few months, though, that reflection and power seemed to fade. President Thomas S. Monson was asked to write a piece for the Washington Post blog “On Faith” for the tenth anniversary of that fateful day. He shared some thoughts that reminded us that God is always there, even when we don’t call on Him. We should call on Him more, in the good times as well as the bad. He remarked on the country’s behavior after 9/11:

“There was, as many have noted, a remarkable surge of faith following the tragedy. People across the United States rediscovered the need for God and turned to Him for solace and understanding. Comfortable times were shattered. We felt the great unsteadiness of life and reached for the great steadiness of our Father in Heaven. And, as ever, we found it. Americans of all faiths came together in a remarkable way.”

This time served to remind us how much strength we have when we lean on our Father in Heaven. However, President Monson also noticed how quickly we seemed to forget, “Sadly, it seems that much of that renewal of faith has waned in the years that have followed. Healing has come with time, but so has indifference. We forget how vulnerable and sorrowful we felt. Our sorrow moved us to remember the deep purposes of our lives. The darkness of our despair brought us a moment of enlightenment. But we are forgetful. When the depth of grief has passed, its lessons often pass from our minds and hearts as well.”

The counsel that a living prophet of God gives us is to draw near to God now and always: “The way to be with God in every season is to strive to be near Him every week and each day. We truly ‘need Him every hour,’ not just in hours of devastation. We must speak to Him, listen to Him, and serve Him. If we wish to serve Him, we should serve our fellow men. We will mourn the lives we lose, but we should also fix the lives that can be mended and heal the hearts that may yet be healed.”

I draw a great deal of comfort from knowing that we have a living prophet of God who offers us counsel and encouragement. I also am comforted to know that God is unwavering in His love for me and in His constancy. He will always be there for all of us to lean on, and can bless our lives so much more if we are willing to allow Him in for our joys and sorrows alike.

Dallin Oaks, apostle for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints speaks at Chapman College in religious freedom and the Constitution

Under the direction of Thomas S. Monson, Mormon prophet, Dallin H. Oaks, an apostle for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, whose members are sometimes called Mormons, spoke at Chapman College School of Law in California recently. His topic was religious freedom and his speech was a plea for people of all faiths to unite in protecting the freedom of religion promised to all Americans in the Constitution. He explained that this did not require a unifying of doctrine or any need to agree on doctrine. It is entirely about protecting the collective rights of all people of faith to practice that faith, whatever it is. “What unites us in religion is far more important than what divides us in the capacity to speak up for religious freedom.”Because many of the earliest European settlers in this country came to escape England’s official state religion, the founding fathers wanted to make sure the government here would never choose one religion over another. This is the reason for the wording in the Constitution, which does not mention separation of church and state, but instead focuses on prohibiting the establishment of an official religion or prohibiting the practice of religion.

The history of religious freedom is long and fascinating, but it can particularly helpful to look at how that freedom came to be in our Bill of Rights. As Elder Oaks noted in his speech, it is the very first freedom promised and therefore was clearly considered the most important.

At the time James Madison was trying to decide what rights we needed in the Bill of Rights, five state constitutions permitted the establishment of official religions, demonstrating the need for a constitutional requirement of freedom. A great deal of time was spent by Madison and by the committee that edited the proposals choosing the order of the amendments. This demonstrates that there was a purpose to the order and that they were not randomly listed. The first amendment listed was the most important. The very first amendment recommended by the select committee was worded in this way, although it was altered later. However, the original wording demonstrates without question the intent of the law:

No religion shall be established by law; nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed.” Clearly, the law was aimed only at preventing an American equivalent of the Church of England.” Samuel Livermore of New Hampshire wanted even stronger language: “The Congress shall make no laws touching religion or the right of conscience.” The House accepted this proposal, but Roger Sherman thought there was no need for it because he said Congress didn’t have the power to make a religious establishment anyway. Madison considered the religious freedom amendment to be the one that mattered most of all because he’d spent so much of his career fighting against the desire for an official state religion. According to Richard Labunski, “While accepting Livermore’s changes, Madison said the amendment before the House meant that ‘Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience.” (Labunski, Richard E. James Madison and the Struggle for the Bill of Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. 223-24. Print.)

This gives us a very clear understanding of the original intent of the law, and this original intent is what Elder Oaks was addressing in his speech.

The free “exercise” of religion obviously involves both (1) the right to choose religious beliefs and affiliations and (2) the right to “exercise” or practice those beliefs without government restraint. However, in a nation with citizens of many different religious beliefs the right of some to act upon their religious beliefs must be qualified by the government’s responsibility to further compelling government interests, such as the health and safety of all. Otherwise, for example, the government could not protect its citizens’ persons or properties from neighbors whose religious principles compelled practices that threatened others’ health or personal security. Government authorities have wrestled with this tension for many years, so we have considerable experience in working out the necessary accommodations.

The inherent conflict between the precious religious freedom of the people and the legitimate regulatory responsibilities of the government is the central issue of religious freedom. The problems are not simple, and over the years the United States Supreme Court, which has the ultimate responsibility of interpreting the meaning of the lofty and general provisions of the Constitution, has struggled to identify principles that can guide its decisions when a law or regulation is claimed to violate someone’s free exercise of religion. As would be expected, many of these battles have involved government efforts to restrict the religious practices of small groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons. Recent experience suggests adding the example of Muslims.

Elder Oaks noted that a current debate involves whether or not religion is entitled to hold a more important place in our society’s laws than other rights. In recent times, that has been a primary focus and one that creates some of the strongest feelings in people on both sides.

Another important current debate over religious freedom concerns whether the guarantee of free exercise of religion gives one who acts on religious grounds greater protection against government prohibitions than are already guaranteed to everyone by other provisions of the constitution, like freedom of speech. I, of course, maintain that unless religious freedom has a unique position we erase the significance of this separate provision in the First Amendment. Treating actions based on religious belief the same as actions based on other systems of belief is not enough to satisfy the special guarantee of religious freedom in the United States Constitution. Religion must preserve its preferred status in our pluralistic society in order to make its unique contribution—its recognition and commitment to values that transcend the secular world.

Elder Oaks reminded listeners that religion has made very powerful and beneficial contributions to the history of the United States and other countries. He mentioned, for instance, the great humanitarian efforts carried out by churches. Most churches consider humanitarianism a cornerstone of their religion, even working together in multi-faith efforts. For instance, when the Mormons take food and emergency supplies into crisis areas, they often work with Muslims or Catholics to get everything in place. Mormons have sponsored neonatal rescue programs, clean water initiatives, wheelchair programs, vaccination programs, and many other services to help those in need around the world. They provide food and other necessities to their own members, so those people won’t have to depend on government resources. In addition, surplus food from this program is delivered to local food banks and the canneries that can the food is made available to other charities. Without the services the churches provide, many more people would suffer and many more government services would be necessary.

Historically significant movements began with sermons given in the pulpits on the Sabbath. Theodore Weld, an evangelical minister, formed the American Anti-Slavery Society in 1833 with William Lloyd Garrison. At Weld’s encouragement, students at Lane Theological Seminary in Cincinnati organized an antislavery group, which later moved to Oberlin College. The Quakers were recognized leaders in the abolitionist movement. The Mennonites also fought against slavery.

Later in history, the fight for black civil rights also largely took place in the churches on Sunday mornings. The leaders of the movement were often ministers, including Martin Luther King, Jr. and Ralph Abernathy.

Today, many are trying to argue that churches should not be allowed to engage in the primary purpose of religion—to fight immorality in the world. Imagine if the laws had been read that way during the early days of our country leading up to the Civil War or during the Civil Rights movement? Someone must speak up for moral change or preservation and this is most often done through religion. America cannot afford to lose the primary source of morality.

Religion also strengthens our nation in the matter of honesty and integrity. Modern science and technology have given us remarkable devices, but we are frequently reminded that their operation in our economic system and the resulting prosperity of our nation rest on the honesty of the men and women who use them. Americans’ honesty is also reflected in our public servants’ remarkable resistance to official corruption. These standards and practices of honesty and integrity rest, ultimately, on our ideas of right and wrong, which, for most of us, are grounded in principles of religion and the teachings of religious leaders.

“Our society is not held together just by law and its enforcement, but most importantly by voluntary obedience to the unenforceable and by widespread adherence to unwritten norms of right or righteous behavior. Religious belief in right and wrong is a vital influence to advocate and persuade such voluntary compliance by a large proportion of our citizens. Others, of course, have a moral compass not expressly grounded in religion. John Adams relied on all of these when he wisely observed that.”

“we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

“ Even the agnostic Oxford-educated British journalist Melanie Phillips admitted that

“one does not have to be a religious believer to grasp that the core values of Western Civilization are grounded in religion, and to be concerned that the erosion of religious observance therefore undermines those values and the ‘secular ideas’ they reflect.”

Elder Oaks called for churches to unite in fighting against the current threats to religious freedom which are escalating. He pointed out this does not require unifying doctrine, only working together for their common interest:

Religious persons should insist on their constitutional right and duty to exercise their religion, to vote their consciences on public issues, and to participate in elections and in debates in the public square and the halls of justice. These are the rights of all citizens and they are also the rights of religious leaders and religious organizations  In this circumstance, it is imperative that those of us who believe in God and in the reality of right and wrong unite more effectively to protect our religious freedom to preach and practice our faith in God and the principles of right and wrong He has established.

This proposal that we unite more effectively does not require any examination of the doctrinal differences among Christians, Jews, and Muslims, or even an identification of the many common elements of our beliefs. All that is necessary for unity and a broad coalition along the lines I am suggesting is a common belief that there is a right and wrong in human behavior that has been established by a Supreme Being. All who believe in that fundamental should unite more effectively to preserve and strengthen the freedom to advocate and practice our religious beliefs, whatever they are. We must walk together for a ways on the same path in order to secure our freedom to pursue our separate ways when that is necessary according to our own beliefs.

I am not proposing a resurrection of the so-called “moral majority,” which was identified with a particular religious group and a particular political party. Nor am I proposing an alliance or identification with any current political movement, tea party or other. I speak for a broader principle, non-partisan and, in its own focused objective, ecumenical.