Mormons not Christian (according to new military list)

[Calm]

I am using Chat here because I don’t have someone else outside the conversation knowledgeable enough to analyze both our comments.  Of course it will be biased by all the conversations I have had with Chat before that it ‘remembers’, though I think I have only asked it once about what Evangelical means.  Didn’t help much.

I asked how others used Evangelical, as rank, trait, or something else.  It responded “all three” and then this…

Quote

Evangelical as a movement (most common scholarly and religious use)

Many people use “evangelical” as a broad movement within Christianity.

Taxonomically, it sits somewhere between “Protestant” and “denomination.”

For example:

• Christianity
  • Protestantism
    • Evangelicalism
      • Baptist
      • Pentecostal
      • Nondenominational
      • Wesleyan
      • Some Presbyterians
      • Some Lutherans

In this usage, if someone says, “I’m evangelical,” they are identifying with a broad religious tradition or movement.

 

2. Evangelical as a theological trait

Others use it descriptively.

Characteristics often include:

• Need for personal conversion (“born again”)
• Authority of scripture
• Importance of sharing the gospel
• Centrality of Christ’s atonement

In this sense, someone might say:

“The LDS Church has evangelical tendencies.”

or

“Catholics can be evangelical.”

or

“That Anglican parish is very evangelical.”

Here, evangelical is functioning as a trait or characteristic.

 

3. Evangelical as an identity label

In modern America, many people use it simply as a self-description.

If you ask:

“What are you?”

and they answer:

“Evangelical.”

they may not be thinking in taxonomic terms at all.

They may mean:

• “I’m part of evangelical culture.”
• “I attend an evangelical church.”
• “I’m a born-again Christian.”
• “I’m not Catholic, Orthodox, LDS, or mainline Protestant.”

In this case, “evangelical” functions as a social identity.

 

Why the confusion is especially strong

Unlike terms such as:

• Catholic
• Lutheran
• Presbyterian
• LDS

which usually point to a specific place in a religious lineage, “evangelical” can refer to:

• a movement,
• a theology,
• a style of worship,
• a cultural identity,
• a political demographic,
• or a personal religious experience.

Scholars have spent decades arguing over its definition.

For example, the historian and scholar of evangelicalism David Bebbington defined evangelicalism by four characteristics (conversionism, biblicism, crucicentrism, and activism). In his model, “evangelical” is primarily a set of traits rather than a denomination.

By contrast, many American Christians use “evangelical” almost as a branch of Christianity:

• Catholic
• Orthodox
• Mainline Protestant
• Evangelical Protestant
• LDS

In that model, it acts more like a rank in the taxonomy.

 

Edited June 14 by Calm

[BlueDreams]

On 6/11/2026 at 8:43 AM, Navidad said:

Hi my friend. Like Calm, I both value and agree with your summary of your concerns.  I am sincerely asking you to help me understand the religious pluralism of the United States that you cherish? The only thing I can get my head around is that you cherish the right of the rest of us to be doctrinally wrong. Then, at the same time, send out thousands of missionaries to systematically and hopefully phase out the very pluralism you cherish. I think we should all cherish the truth of each other's beliefs, or at the very least receive them without necessarily agreeing with them. That, to me, is valuing religious pluralism. I am genuinely trying to understand. Thanks.

I know this was a few pages back...but I wanted to mention a few things then and couldn't do much writing before this moment (this week was insanely busy). I would note some variation of religious freedom and pluralism has been a part of our tradition from the get go. Our 11th article of faith says "We claim the privilege of worshipping almighty god, according to the dictates of our own conscience. And allow all men the same privilege. Let them worship how where or what they may." It's so ingrained that I wrote most of that from memory of a children's song. The practice of pluralism was also present. JS would often study other faiths or people with sources of knowledge he lacked, for example. And there's several examples, both past and present of the church supporting other faith communities in having access to their worship preferences, including by giving or temporarily allowing our church spaces to be used for their services. Again I would note that there's also plenty of tradition of variations of gate-keeping. Several have been pointed out here. But looking at our faith solely from that lens will miss large parts of our dynamics as an overall body. There is an interplay of complex dynamics that lead to us leading out or retaining boundaries and distinction. 

I could point to several examples, but I saw this cool one today that gives a great example of how common phrases can shift in use and meaning withing the church. In this video at the 4:37 mark, It talks of a woman who is learning english at the humanitarian services of the church stating "i can be masali (muslim) in UT" He then goes on to explain that the humanitarian arm isn't there to change someone beliefs, but to "add to what people currently have." Which any former missionary would recognize the familiarity to a Hinkley (?) quote that we ""We say to the people, in effect, you bring with you all the good that you have, and then let us see if we can add to it. That is the spirit of this work. That is the essence of our missionary service."

The current evolution in the church has included more and more inclusive orientations. It doesn't mean we don't value what we have or think that it is something that could enrich and augment others. There's a reason we still proselyte. But the end goal may be more complicated than to simply "end religious pluralism." I don't think anyone worth their snuff in the church seriously believes that's a goal in the here and now. And in the long term I don't think my identity as a latter-day saint will be the one that remains intact as others shift to a higher way of being like I've arrived and I'm just waiting for others to get there too. That is too simplistic (and hubristic) a take on our faith. 

This is my personal beliefs that are still expressions of an LDS-centric context. I believe that all cultures and traditions have received important expression of Christ (or the light of truth) as part of their heritages. I believe that I can learn from them, and have learned from them, as I've studied and pondered them. We're all trying to express the part of the elephant we're holding onto blindly and sharing what we know of it together can help us all grow. When I meet someone with different perspectives and faiths, I hope I can learn from them and I try to be someone they can learn from me as well. I hope we can share and grow a little more together. I find Zion in that space. And that goes beyond Christian faiths. I've learned from varying traditions across the world. I hope to learn from more. They're beautiful even if I think that certain renditions may be flawed or have been used inappropriately to harm others. When I've fallen into the temptation to write off a tradition for the errors or evils they've made in their past/present, I'm often pulled back by God and reminded that they also are doing Their work in different spaces too and that no one is perfect. I assume one day we will place our varying experiences of God on the altar and have them sanctified and united into one great whole. But that in the meantime, practicing bringing them together and giving space for others (ie pluralism) is a sacred act and duty for all of us to truly flourish.    

 

I have more to say on one other thing. But my baby says I'm done for now

with luv, 

BD

Edited June 14 by BlueDreams

[Calm]

47 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I assume one day we will place our varying experiences of God on the altar and have them sanctified and united into one great whole. But that in the meantime, practicing bringing them together and giving space for others (ie pluralism) is a sacred act and duty for all of us to truly flourish.    

Well stated.  Very well…

[Navidad]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

For example, the historian and scholar of evangelicalism David Bebbington defined evangelicalism by four characteristics (conversionism, biblicism, crucicentrism, and activism). In his model, “evangelical” is primarily a set of traits rather than a denomination.

I am uncertain as to where to start. I woke up this morning to several posts from you. I value and appreciate them all, as I value and appreciate you. 

It is interesting you mention David Bebbington. He is a peer (we were born within months of each other), a colleague (we both focus on the study of religion, not theology or faith), and I studied religion at the graduate level at the institution where he now has his center, and I earned my doctorate at a peer British institution to where he taught for years. In some areas, he and I will probably think alike. 

I would simply suggest that Evangelical is an adjective, not a noun—although it can be used as a noun, of course. In that sense, I consider it to be a trait, a psychological/theological/sociological trait. It does not fit on a taxonomy or religious hierarchy. It is often intermingled in a lazy sort of way with its cognate words: evangel, evangelism, and evangelistic. It fits perfectly with its cognate Evangelicalism as the noun with which it aligns. But then again, Evangelicalism is not comfortable in a taxonomy. It is a descriptive noun more than a categorical noun. Evangelical is best used without a definite article. I am Evangelical; not I am an Evangelical. Obviously, being rushing and being finite, I have probably used it with the article on my zillions of posts here. Trait, or descriptive word, is an excellent way to refer to Evangelicalism or Evangelical. 

You asked me if people here say I am wrong in how I define Christian. Yes, I believe they do. But let me try to say this clearly, lovingly, and accurately (not necessarily in that order). It seems to me (with incertitude) that my LDS friends have increasingly (over time) mastered the ancient art of thrust and parry. I may say, “So-and so is not an Evangelical.” Then one of you finds a website where he is identified as an evangelical, and triumphantly returns to me in a reply, saying, “See? This website says he is Evangelical.” Implicitly thrusting and parrying what I said—saying you are mistaken, without saying it. Does that make sense? I am corrected on this forum constantly by Wikipedia, ChatGPT, or some source to inform me of the error of my ways or statements. That is why I have simply grown accustomed to anticipating the thrust by saying, “Sure, you will find a website that indicates such and such” in advance, to spare me the frequency of being corrected. So, my answer to your question is simply, “yes.”

I believe many of my LDS Christian friends are stuck, or perhaps better, “caught in between.” What I am describing is my personal truth based on observations in various LDS settings. I do not present it as fact; perhaps my observation of a “trait” since we are using that word. In my experience, I hear a declarative statement, followed by a softening of the blow. Something like this: “The ladies in the ladies' relief society really love and respect your wife.” It is a shame she does not have the Gift of the Holy Spirit.” Oh, but that is nothing personal. It is just our doctrine (silently implying—so I have to say it). I deem this a thrust and parry. It hurts.

Some of our Catholic friends here sort of scold me at times by stating that I simply shouldn't be offended. I don't agree, so just walk away. The problem is I have nowhere to walk away to. I live in a dominantly LDS closed culture. In part we moved here to learn from that. I am not sure if I would do that again. At any rate, we are here, and here is the grocery store, the rodeo grounds, the hardware store, the restaurant, the ice cream shop, the doctor's office ( he describes himself as a Jack Mormon!). , and the pharmacy. I came here by choice, not by chance. So I must accept the constant thrusts and parries. At times they hurt more than other times. When my dear wife is impugned because of a doctrine, that tells me that doctrine has shifted to a dogma (in a non-Catholic sense). 

Ok, I very much appreciate the time you spent online seeking to understand my perspective. Again, as you have discovered, Evangelical is not a place on a taxonomy. It is an identifier/adjective to differentiate the person from others on his or her same taxonomical (I made up that word) position on a chart. It is a frame of mind, a way of thinking. It is predominantly found in Christianity, but I would suggest the trait is found across religions. It is a "breakaway" descriptor. Those who are Evangelical have “broken away from,” have left, abandoned, or migrated from, sometimes at great cost to their relationships, the angry world of Fundamentalism (also a trait and adjectival noun). Evangelical, also around the 1970s, became a preferential word among conservative Christianity. So many institutions, and churches took upon themselves the descriptor “Evangelical.” However, they did so without the concomitant traits that being Evangelical includes.

I gotta run. I am trying to respond to several posts. My wife just called me to eggs and corned beef hash (with ketchup). Now that is a Mennonite (non-Protestant) non-Evangelical breakfast! Add green jello and funeral potatoes, and it just might be LDS! Ha! Seriously, I appreciate all the time folks took to try to figure me out. My wife has been trying for 56 years now!

Edited June 14 by Navidad

[3DOP]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Some of our Catholic friends here sort of scold me at times by stating that I simply shouldn't be offended. 

 

Hello Navidad. A blessed and happy Lord's Day to you and Mrs. Navidad.

I can't remember counselling you to be unoffended. But its not a bad idea Nav!

There are some Christians who are more exclusive than others. If like the LDS and Catholics they believe in a priestly hierarchy, there have to be boundaries to be accepted for one to be fully LDS or Catholic in this life. 

I could wish for your own sake as I am sure everybody here wishes, that the membership rules could be bent for a fellow Christian, who we do not doubt loves the Lord, and laments he can't really be "in our club". 

But try to understand that it would be to deny our own identity to adjust beliefs and practices for those we love. You have sensed that love in your LDS sojourn, I think? And you seem to have had good experiences with your local Catholic priests too.

Its not personal at all. We can only open the door so far and be true to our faith traditions. I would think that your recent experiences in real life and to a lesser extent online, should give you some insights into the phenomenon of Christian exclusivity.

I have already told you how I pondered a lot about your observation that even as a Catholic, I tended towards fundamentalism (exclusivity?). You were correct. I have made an adjustment. But even now in the Catholic mainstream, post Vatican 2? I cannot get away from the teaching that in some sense, there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. 

In the years when I was struggling over where to plant my flag, I realized that there are two kinds of Christian Church, those that say they are one true Church, and those that don't. Almost all of them are in the second group, that don't. I take them at their word in thinking that I am okay outside of any of their not one true visible churches.

That is why I narrowed it down to the LDS and Catholic churches. Now here you are, ironically, living in a region where those are your only choices. It seems like it should have been me! But God's ways are funny. You have to believe it is God's will for you and I know you know. The pain you feel because of not being fully accepted is part of your path. Maybe it is so you can write a better book! I pray that it is so we could sing and pray and worship together as one on earth. But if not, I would hope that we could in the not distant future, do so forever and ever.

God love you. Your friend in Jesus,

Rory

Edited June 14 by 3DOP

[Stargazer]

On 6/10/2026 at 11:28 PM, Calm said:

And I would be there complaining if I worked in the military.  I think it’s completely inappropriate for him to arrange for only his version of religion and not others.  

As I believe I pointed out, religious services in the Pentagon are already being arranged and performed. And have been since the Pentagon was built. By both military chaplains and others. If Hegseth wants to sponsor an additional prayer meeting for those who share his particular slice of Protestantism, I don't see what the problem is. 

Or, rather, I do see the problem. He's Pete Hegseth. That's the problem. He has a "Deus Vult" tattoo. He has "problematic" cultural and religious beliefs. He's not interested in fostering leftist touchie-feelism in the military. In short, he is the antithesis of everything the left and the Democratic party stands for. And both the national and the international media has a deep and abiding hatred of everything he stands for. With a couple of exceptions.

On 6/10/2026 at 11:28 PM, Calm said:

If I were Secretary of Defense***, I would ask for volunteers to run the other services and if no one was available, do it myself (or rather assign one of my people) and show up at least once to each version to show there was to be no favoritism…because as Secretary of Defense I would be representing the US, not LDS.  If for some reason this was impossible, I would still arrange meetings if needed, but they would be in a private, not government facility and would not be heavily publicized.  It would not be anything close to official or paid by tax dollars unless the identical opportunity was not only available, but used by other faiths.  I would avoid any possibility that it looked like the LDS faith or any other had a favored status.

I don't see what you're complaining about, I'm afraid. To start with, cabinet secretaries don't "represent" the country, they are appointed to manage and represent important government agencies. Our representatives sit in Congress. 

I served in the US Army for 8 years. For three years I was stationed at Ft. Lewis, Washington. Protestant services were always available on Sundays at post chapels, and these were conducted by chaplains wearing crosses as their branch insignia. Catholics living on post could attend Catholic Mass conducted by the Catholic chaplains. Jewish soldiers had services on post as well, conducted by Jewish chaplains or civilian rabbis. There was an LDS ward for members living in military housing on post that met right outside one of the post's gates in a leased facility. Here's the schedule of religious services now offered at Joint Base Lewis-McChord: Worship Service Schedule. As you see, there's no favoritism. The facilities are government-owned and paid for.  The chaplains conducting the services are officers of the US Army and Air Force, and are paid a salary by the government. 

Just for fun, here's Joint Base Lewis-McChord's main chapel. Catholics, Protestants, and Buddhists all have religious services here. It's a government building paid for by taxpayers.

On 6/10/2026 at 11:28 PM, Calm said:

***I would never work for a president whose focus was on aggression rather than defense of our country, so most likely there would be a new executive order vacating the previous one restoring the primary official title to use everywhere

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but national defense always involves war and aggression, or the threat of war and aggression. Speak softly but carry a big stick. The best defense is a good offence. "Si vis pacem, para bellum" (If you want peace, prepare for war). That is the focus of national defense. Anyone who thinks self-defense generally does not involve aggression is not thinking very clearly. Even Aikido, a martial art which involves deflecting attacks, is aggressive - the deflection involves using your attacker's momentum against him, by throwing him in the direction he was already going, using his aggression against himself. But even that is aggressive. It has to be.

I don't know if you're aware of the history of the Department of Defense, so if in the following I'm telling you something you already know, I apologize.

For 158 years, up until 1947, the United States had a Department of War. It was the cabinet department responsible for the operation and maintenance of the United States Army. It also had responsibility for naval affairs from 1794 until the establishment of the Department of the Navy in 1798, and for most non-naval air forces until the creation of the Department of the Air Force on September 18, 1947. It's predecessor (starting from 1776) was called the Board of War. In 1947 it was decided to reorganize the US military under a single overall department. They decided to make it sound more peaceful by calling it the Department of Defense. The Department of War was renamed Department of the Army.

But calling the consolidated military executive department the Department of Defense is an outright lie. Every time the Department of Defense has acted to send troops, aircraft, or ships to aggress overseas, it involved making or threatening war (whether labelled officially as such, or not), and committing aggression. Whether one approved of these actions or not, it was making war and committing aggression. 

Calling the Department of Defense the Department of War is to acknowledge the truth, and deny the lie. We live in a dangerous and violent world. Calling it the Department of War acknowledges that fact. 

On 6/10/2026 at 11:28 PM, Calm said:

…plus I believe Congress should get more respect from the Executive branch.  

Maybe Congress should give the Executive branch more respect? As I recall, Congress has impeached President Trump twice, acquitting him both times. When he gives his required State of the Union message each year, certain members of Congress shout continuous imprecations at him (a distinct lack of decorum), and famously, one Speaker of the House sat behind him at the podium ostentatiously tearing up her copy of his speech for all to see. 

Congress itself gets little respect from the American people. Their approval rating has sunk to a new low of 10%. 

On 6/10/2026 at 11:28 PM, Calm said:

Using executive orders to tailor the government to one’s personal taste is a presidential habit I hope gets broken soon.  At the very least, it’s a waste of money and time and creates a mass of confusion if controversial and is likely to get reversed or placed on hold judicially.

You appear not to understand what executive orders are. Allow me to explain.

As you know, the President can't create laws by himself, although he may and does propose laws which Congress can then consider for adoption, if they want. Executive orders are nothing more than the creation of regulations that execute or administer existing law. All federal regulations are executive orders, but the vast majority are issued by the federal executive departments responsible for their various subject matters. Most of the time, the text of laws passed by Congress are not used to administer those laws. They are administered, or executed, by executive departments responsible for the subject matter of the various laws. As the head of the executive branch, the President is entitled to issue regulations himself, though he almost always lets his department heads do that.

For example, if you examine the Internal Revenue Code you will find that the various provisions in that body of law include such verbiage as "See the regulations pertaining to this...". And then to see how the IRS administers or executes that provision, you have to go to the corresponding section of the Code of Federal Regulations. The regulations in the CFR are drawn up to administer the laws passed by Congress, and are supposed to conform to the laws' provisions. When these regulations are published in the Federal Register, Congress has a certain length of time (30 days, I think) before they become effective, allowing Congress to disapprove of the regulation, and make the department revise it. 

Presidential executive orders are similar, in that they administer or execute laws. The President's recent order, Executive Order 14201, titled "Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports," implements or executes provisions of Title IX of the US Code, which states "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." That executive order is a reflection of the idea that allowing transwomen to compete in women's sports effectively denies to women and girls the benefit of that part of education that involves sports. In short, the EO doesn't make a law, it executes or administers an existing law. You can read the entire executive order here: "Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports". You will see that it doesn't create a law, but implements the existing law.

That's why executive orders cannot be eliminated. Here's an extract from the Wikipedia article about Executive orders.

"In the United States, an executive order is a directive by the president of the United States that manages operations of the federal government. Executive orders are only binding on the federal government's executive branch. The legal or constitutional basis for executive orders has multiple sources. Article Two of the United States Constitution gives presidents broad executive and enforcement authority to use their discretion to determine how to enforce the law or to otherwise manage the resources and staff of the federal government's executive branch. The delegation of discretionary power to make such orders is required to be supported by either an expressed or implied congressional law, or the constitution itself. The vast majority of executive orders are proposed by federal agencies before being issued by the president. Like both legislative statutes and the regulations promulgated by government agencies, executive orders in the United States are subject to judicial review and may be overturned if the orders lack support by statute or the Constitution. Presidential executive orders, once issued, remain in force until they are canceled, revoked, adjudicated unlawful, or expire on their terms."

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

You appear not to understand what executive orders are. Allow me to explain.

No, I understand what they are, I just see the topic as political and so didn’t spend time being as precise as I usually try to be.

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

As I believe I pointed out, religious services in the Pentagon are already being arranged and performed. And have been since the Pentagon was built. By both military chaplains and others. If Hegseth wants to sponsor an additional prayer meeting for those who share his particular slice of Protestantism, I don't see what the problem is. 

Or, rather, I do see the problem. He's Pete Hegseth. That's the problem. He has a "Deus Vult" tattoo. He has "problematic" cultural and religious beliefs. He's not interested in fostering leftist touchie-feelism in the military. In short, he is the antithesis of everything the left and the Democratic party stands for. And both the national and the international media has a deep and abiding hatred of everything he stands for. With a couple of exceptions.

I don't see what you're complaining about, I'm afraid. To start with, cabinet secretaries don't "represent" the country, they are appointed to manage and represent important government agencies. Our representatives sit in Congress. 

I served in the US Army for 8 years. For three years I was stationed at Ft. Lewis, Washington. Protestant services were always available on Sundays at post chapels, and these were conducted by chaplains wearing crosses as their branch insignia. Catholics living on post could attend Catholic Mass conducted by the Catholic chaplains. Jewish soldiers had services on post as well, conducted by Jewish chaplains or civilian rabbis. There was an LDS ward for members living in military housing on post that met right outside one of the post's gates in a leased facility. Here's the schedule of religious services now offered at Joint Base Lewis-McChord: Worship Service Schedule. As you see, there's no favoritism. The facilities are government-owned and paid for.  The chaplains conducting the services are officers of the US Army and Air Force, and are paid a salary by the government. 

Just for fun, here's Joint Base Lewis-McChord's main chapel. Catholics, Protestants, and Buddhists all have religious services here. It's a government building paid for by taxpayers.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but national defense always involves war and aggression, or the threat of war and aggression. Speak softly but carry a big stick. The best defense is a good offence. "Si vis pacem, para bellum" (If you want peace, prepare for war). That is the focus of national defense. Anyone who thinks self-defense generally does not involve aggression is not thinking very clearly. Even Aikido, a martial art which involves deflecting attacks, is aggressive - the deflection involves using your attacker's momentum against him, by throwing him in the direction he was already going, using his aggression against himself. But even that is aggressive. It has to be.

I don't know if you're aware of the history of the Department of Defense, so if in the following I'm telling you something you already know, I apologize.

For 158 years, up until 1947, the United States had a Department of War. It was the cabinet department responsible for the operation and maintenance of the United States Army. It also had responsibility for naval affairs from 1794 until the establishment of the Department of the Navy in 1798, and for most non-naval air forces until the creation of the Department of the Air Force on September 18, 1947. It's predecessor (starting from 1776) was called the Board of War. In 1947 it was decided to reorganize the US military under a single overall department. They decided to make it sound more peaceful by calling it the Department of Defense. The Department of War was renamed Department of the Army.

But calling the consolidated military executive department the Department of Defense is an outright lie. Every time the Department of Defense has acted to send troops, aircraft, or ships to aggress overseas, it involved making or threatening war (whether labelled officially as such, or not), and committing aggression. Whether one approved of these actions or not, it was making war and committing aggression. 

Calling the Department of Defense the Department of War is to acknowledge the truth, and deny the lie. We live in a dangerous and violent world. Calling it the Department of War acknowledges that fact. 

Maybe Congress should give the Executive branch more respect? As I recall, Congress has impeached President Trump twice, acquitting him both times. When he gives his required State of the Union message each year, certain members of Congress shout continuous imprecations at him (a distinct lack of decorum), and famously, one Speaker of the House sat behind him at the podium ostentatiously tearing up her copy of his speech for all to see. 

Congress itself gets little respect from the American people. Their approval rating has sunk to a new low of 10%. 

You appear not to understand what executive orders are. Allow me to explain.

As you know, the President can't create laws by himself, although he may and does propose laws which Congress can then consider for adoption, if they want. Executive orders are nothing more than the creation of regulations that execute or administer existing law. All federal regulations are executive orders, but the vast majority are issued by the federal executive departments responsible for their various subject matters. Most of the time, the text of laws passed by Congress are not used to administer those laws. They are administered, or executed, by executive departments responsible for the subject matter of the various laws. As the head of the executive branch, the President is entitled to issue regulations himself, though he almost always lets his department heads do that.

For example, if you examine the Internal Revenue Code you will find that the various provisions in that body of law include such verbiage as "See the regulations pertaining to this...". And then to see how the IRS administers or executes that provision, you have to go to the corresponding section of the Code of Federal Regulations. The regulations in the CFR are drawn up to administer the laws passed by Congress, and are supposed to conform to the laws' provisions. When these regulations are published in the Federal Register, Congress has a certain length of time (30 days, I think) before they become effective, allowing Congress to disapprove of the regulation, and make the department revise it. 

Presidential executive orders are similar, in that they administer or execute laws. The President's recent order, Executive Order 14201, titled "Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports," implements or executes provisions of Title IX of the US Code, which states "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." That executive order is a reflection of the idea that allowing transwomen to compete in women's sports effectively denies to women and girls the benefit of that part of education that involves sports. In short, the EO doesn't make a law, it executes or administers an existing law. You can read the entire executive order here: "Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports". You will see that it doesn't create a law, but implements the existing law.

That's why executive orders cannot be eliminated. Here's an extract from the Wikipedia article about Executive orders.

"In the United States, an executive order is a directive by the president of the United States that manages operations of the federal government. Executive orders are only binding on the federal government's executive branch. The legal or constitutional basis for executive orders has multiple sources. Article Two of the United States Constitution gives presidents broad executive and enforcement authority to use their discretion to determine how to enforce the law or to otherwise manage the resources and staff of the federal government's executive branch. The delegation of discretionary power to make such orders is required to be supported by either an expressed or implied congressional law, or the constitution itself. The vast majority of executive orders are proposed by federal agencies before being issued by the president. Like both legislative statutes and the regulations promulgated by government agencies, executive orders in the United States are subject to judicial review and may be overturned if the orders lack support by statute or the Constitution. Presidential executive orders, once issued, remain in force until they are canceled, revoked, adjudicated unlawful, or expire on their terms."

I like you, just don't like this post.

[Tacenda]

On 6/14/2026 at 12:14 PM, 3DOP said:

Hello Navidad. A blessed and happy Lord's Day to you and Mrs. Navidad.

I can't remember counselling you to be unoffended. But its not a bad idea Nav!

There are some Christians who are more exclusive than others. If like the LDS and Catholics they believe in a priestly hierarchy, there have to be boundaries to be accepted for one to be fully LDS or Catholic in this life. 

I could wish for your own sake as I am sure everybody here wishes, that the membership rules could be bent for a fellow Christian, who we do not doubt loves the Lord, and laments he can't really be "in our club". 

But try to understand that it would be to deny our own identity to adjust beliefs and practices for those we love. You have sensed that love in your LDS sojourn, I think? And you seem to have had good experiences with your local Catholic priests too.

Its not personal at all. We can only open the door so far and be true to our faith traditions. I would think that your recent experiences in real life and to a lesser extent online, should give you some insights into the phenomenon of Christian exclusivity.

I have already told you how I pondered a lot about your observation that even as a Catholic, I tended towards fundamentalism (exclusivity?). You were correct. I have made an adjustment. But even now in the Catholic mainstream, post Vatican 2? I cannot get away from the teaching that in some sense, there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. 

In the years when I was struggling over where to plant my flag, I realized that there are two kinds of Christian Church, those that say they are one true Church, and those that don't. Almost all of them are in the second group, that don't. I take them at their word in thinking that I am okay outside of any of their not one true visible churches.

That is why I narrowed it down to the LDS and Catholic churches. Now here you are, ironically, living in a region where those are your only choices. It seems like it should have been me! But God's ways are funny. You have to believe it is God's will for you and I know you know. The pain you feel because of not being fully accepted is part of your path. Maybe it is so you can write a better book! I pray that it is so we could sing and pray and worship together as one on earth. But if not, I would hope that we could in the not distant future, do so forever and ever.

God love you. Your friend in Jesus,

Rory

Not about the subject, just letting you know, my new (Sunday night)  baby grandson is named Rory!

[3DOP]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Not about the subject, just letting you know, my new (Sunday night)  baby grandson is named Rory!

Great! But please dissuade them by all possible means, for the child's sake to avoid naming the next one 3DOP. Hehe.

Congratulations Tacenda and thanks for letting me know. I will say a little prayer for little Rory. God bless you too.

 

[The Nehor]

On 6/16/2026 at 9:41 AM, Stargazer said:

As I believe I pointed out, religious services in the Pentagon are already being arranged and performed. And have been since the Pentagon was built. By both military chaplains and others. If Hegseth wants to sponsor an additional prayer meeting for those who share his particular slice of Protestantism, I don't see what the problem is. 

Or, rather, I do see the problem. He's Pete Hegseth. That's the problem. He has a "Deus Vult" tattoo. He has "problematic" cultural and religious beliefs. He's not interested in fostering leftist touchie-feelism in the military. In short, he is the antithesis of everything the left and the Democratic party stands for. And both the national and the international media has a deep and abiding hatred of everything he stands for. With a couple of exceptions.

I don't see what you're complaining about, I'm afraid. To start with, cabinet secretaries don't "represent" the country, they are appointed to manage and represent important government agencies. Our representatives sit in Congress. 

I served in the US Army for 8 years. For three years I was stationed at Ft. Lewis, Washington. Protestant services were always available on Sundays at post chapels, and these were conducted by chaplains wearing crosses as their branch insignia. Catholics living on post could attend Catholic Mass conducted by the Catholic chaplains. Jewish soldiers had services on post as well, conducted by Jewish chaplains or civilian rabbis. There was an LDS ward for members living in military housing on post that met right outside one of the post's gates in a leased facility. Here's the schedule of religious services now offered at Joint Base Lewis-McChord: Worship Service Schedule. As you see, there's no favoritism. The facilities are government-owned and paid for.  The chaplains conducting the services are officers of the US Army and Air Force, and are paid a salary by the government. 

Just for fun, here's Joint Base Lewis-McChord's main chapel. Catholics, Protestants, and Buddhists all have religious services here. It's a government building paid for by taxpayers.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but national defense always involves war and aggression, or the threat of war and aggression. Speak softly but carry a big stick. The best defense is a good offence. "Si vis pacem, para bellum" (If you want peace, prepare for war). That is the focus of national defense. Anyone who thinks self-defense generally does not involve aggression is not thinking very clearly. Even Aikido, a martial art which involves deflecting attacks, is aggressive - the deflection involves using your attacker's momentum against him, by throwing him in the direction he was already going, using his aggression against himself. But even that is aggressive. It has to be.

I don't know if you're aware of the history of the Department of Defense, so if in the following I'm telling you something you already know, I apologize.

For 158 years, up until 1947, the United States had a Department of War. It was the cabinet department responsible for the operation and maintenance of the United States Army. It also had responsibility for naval affairs from 1794 until the establishment of the Department of the Navy in 1798, and for most non-naval air forces until the creation of the Department of the Air Force on September 18, 1947. It's predecessor (starting from 1776) was called the Board of War. In 1947 it was decided to reorganize the US military under a single overall department. They decided to make it sound more peaceful by calling it the Department of Defense. The Department of War was renamed Department of the Army.

But calling the consolidated military executive department the Department of Defense is an outright lie. Every time the Department of Defense has acted to send troops, aircraft, or ships to aggress overseas, it involved making or threatening war (whether labelled officially as such, or not), and committing aggression. Whether one approved of these actions or not, it was making war and committing aggression. 

Calling the Department of Defense the Department of War is to acknowledge the truth, and deny the lie. We live in a dangerous and violent world. Calling it the Department of War acknowledges that fact. 

Maybe Congress should give the Executive branch more respect? As I recall, Congress has impeached President Trump twice, acquitting him both times. When he gives his required State of the Union message each year, certain members of Congress shout continuous imprecations at him (a distinct lack of decorum), and famously, one Speaker of the House sat behind him at the podium ostentatiously tearing up her copy of his speech for all to see. 

Congress itself gets little respect from the American people. Their approval rating has sunk to a new low of 10%. 

You appear not to understand what executive orders are. Allow me to explain.

As you know, the President can't create laws by himself, although he may and does propose laws which Congress can then consider for adoption, if they want. Executive orders are nothing more than the creation of regulations that execute or administer existing law. All federal regulations are executive orders, but the vast majority are issued by the federal executive departments responsible for their various subject matters. Most of the time, the text of laws passed by Congress are not used to administer those laws. They are administered, or executed, by executive departments responsible for the subject matter of the various laws. As the head of the executive branch, the President is entitled to issue regulations himself, though he almost always lets his department heads do that.

For example, if you examine the Internal Revenue Code you will find that the various provisions in that body of law include such verbiage as "See the regulations pertaining to this...". And then to see how the IRS administers or executes that provision, you have to go to the corresponding section of the Code of Federal Regulations. The regulations in the CFR are drawn up to administer the laws passed by Congress, and are supposed to conform to the laws' provisions. When these regulations are published in the Federal Register, Congress has a certain length of time (30 days, I think) before they become effective, allowing Congress to disapprove of the regulation, and make the department revise it. 

Presidential executive orders are similar, in that they administer or execute laws. The President's recent order, Executive Order 14201, titled "Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports," implements or executes provisions of Title IX of the US Code, which states "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." That executive order is a reflection of the idea that allowing transwomen to compete in women's sports effectively denies to women and girls the benefit of that part of education that involves sports. In short, the EO doesn't make a law, it executes or administers an existing law. You can read the entire executive order here: "Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports". You will see that it doesn't create a law, but implements the existing law.

That's why executive orders cannot be eliminated. Here's an extract from the Wikipedia article about Executive orders.

"In the United States, an executive order is a directive by the president of the United States that manages operations of the federal government. Executive orders are only binding on the federal government's executive branch. The legal or constitutional basis for executive orders has multiple sources. Article Two of the United States Constitution gives presidents broad executive and enforcement authority to use their discretion to determine how to enforce the law or to otherwise manage the resources and staff of the federal government's executive branch. The delegation of discretionary power to make such orders is required to be supported by either an expressed or implied congressional law, or the constitution itself. The vast majority of executive orders are proposed by federal agencies before being issued by the president. Like both legislative statutes and the regulations promulgated by government agencies, executive orders in the United States are subject to judicial review and may be overturned if the orders lack support by statute or the Constitution. Presidential executive orders, once issued, remain in force until they are canceled, revoked, adjudicated unlawful, or expire on their terms."

Well, that is all pretty much wrong.

[Tacenda]

On 6/16/2026 at 9:04 PM, 3DOP said:

Great! But please dissuade them by all possible means, for the child's sake to avoid naming the next one 3DOP. Hehe.

Congratulations Tacenda and thanks for letting me know. I will say a little prayer for little Rory. God bless you too.

 

Thanks!! Prayers are awesome too! 

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Thanks!! Prayers are awesome too! 

 

3Dop aka Rory's quote: "Great! But please dissuade them by all possible means, for the child's sake to avoid naming the next one 3DOP. Hehe."

I'm quoting myself because I hadn't really paid as much attention or did and I have ADD. That was hilarious @3DOP!!

I don't believe that will happen having that name. Unless there's a rap singer named that.  But they'd have to like rap.  

 

Edited Thursday at 10:41 PM by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

Apologize for my derailing that's one of the reasons I've been put on "limited".

About the military list, I looked it up concerning chaplains. I believe a non religious person could be one too. But maybe this has been addressed already.

c/p:

"The military maintains two primary types of "lists" related to chaplains: the Religious Affiliation Code list and the Chaplain Endorsement list.

These lists are used to manage personnel and ensure service members receive appropriate spiritual support. 

1. Religious Affiliation (Faith) Codes List

The Pentagon uses a list of 31 standardized Religious Affiliation Codes (reduced from over 200) to track the religious demographics within the military.

Purpose: It helps the Department of Defense estimate the faith and belief breakdown in the ranks and allows commanders to better equip chaplain teams to meet those spiritual needs. 

How It Helps You: It ensures that the right mix of chaplains (such as Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, etc.) are available to tend to the spiritual and moral well-being of troops.

To serve as a military chaplain, a religious leader cannot simply apply; they must be officially endorsed by a recognized faith group or ecclesiastical endorsing agency. 

Purpose: The military requires this endorsement to verify that the chaplain is in good standing with their specific denomination and qualified to perform religious rites and ceremonies.

The Roster: Each branch of the military maintains its own roster of these endorsed chaplains."

[Tacenda]

On 6/7/2026 at 7:29 AM, Navidad said:

Calm mentioned Hegseth. Does any here on this forum know what is his religious affiliation? Not some broad generalization (I dislike them). But of what church is he a member? What church does he attend? That might help us understand with much more specificity (I always liked that word!). 

I saw this article:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/what-to-know-about-the-archconservative-church-defense-secretary-pete-hegseth-attends

Edited Thursday at 11:05 PM by Tacenda