About a month ago, the Utah Area Presidency sent a memo to all Utah stake presidents, bishops, and branch presidents. In that memo, the Area Presidency informs them that the Utah legislature designated September as “American Founders Month.”[fn1] It encourages each stake to sponsor one patriotic event in September.
Now, if that’s as far as it went, it would be fine. We can ask whether an international church should spend time focusing on patriotism in a particular country,[fn2] but the request doesn’t strike me as inherently suspect. After all, it’s not a church-wide directive.
But then the memo gets into specifics. And the Area Presidency’s specifics risk harming both members of the church and the church itself. Why? Because the Area Presidency gives its endorsement to an organization called “Why I Love America.” In fact, it dedicates a pretty substantial paragraph making that endorsement:
“A nonpartisan organization, operating under the title “Why I Love America,” is working with Utah schools, cities and interfaith organizations to sponsor events and articles that will help educate Utah citizens and students about our inspired Constitution and Founding Fathers. This organization hopes that their effort will reenergize a spirit of patriotism and recognition of God’s hand in the origin and destiny of America — that we will be a nation under God, not without God. The attached list of ideas includes some of their suggestions and materials available to promote this cause. We particularly draw your attention to the booklet “Why I Love America” (a copy of which will be sent to you and can also be ordered online) that would be a fun and educational way for families and individuals to learn about the Constitution.”
There are a couple really significant problems with this group. But before I get to them, I want to be clear: this group is clearly not formally associated with the church. True, most, if not all, of its leadership committee are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And one of its chairs is a former Sunday School General President, while another member is a former Primary General President.[fn3] Still, it’s a private organization, and the fact that it’s in Utah makes it likely that a substantial part of the leadership will be members of the LDS Church. If a private group in Utah wanted to do the things it’s doing, it wouldn’t reflect on the church.
But here, the Area Presidency—official high-level church leaders—have explicitly endorsed the organization, officially endorsed one of their publications, and, in fact, sent that publication to all of the stakes, wards, and branches in Utah. That is a striking—and resounding—endorsement of the organization.
So what’s wrong with this organization that the church is endorsing?
David Barton and Anti-Islamic “History”
A lot. I’ll start with the big one first: its sister organization, founded on the same day by the same person, [update 7/16/23: according to a calendar on Why I Love America’s website, it looks like the organization itself] is bringing David Barton in as its keynote speaker for its Constitution Day event [which will be held at the Bountiful Regional Center which, as far as I can tell, is a building owned by the church]. Barton is a self-styled historian who argues that the U.S. is an explicitly Christian nation. In making that argument, he attacks Islam, claiming Muslims have not contributed meaningfully to the country and, in fact, that the U.S. has been at war (metaphorically) with Islam since its earliest days. The Anti-Defamation League has pointed out that on multiple occasions, Barton has spoken to racist and anti-Semitic organizations.
Beyond that, Barton’s version of history is deeply wrong. It’s not just that he lacks historical credentials—though he does—it’s that he picks and chooses (and sometimes makes up) facts to support his version of history. So why did the group choose him as its speaker? I really have no idea—Why I Love America found Jen Brown says that “He’s a constitutional expert […] He’s spent his whole life studying this material.”
But that’s a terrible justification. That he’s spent his life studying the Constitution doesn’t mean he gets it. Like we used to say when I was a serious musician: practice doesn’t make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect. Studying the Constitution doesn’t mean you get it, especially when that study is motivated and you’re prooftexting your evidence.
All of that said, if a private organization wants to invite an unqualified charlatan to address them, that doesn’t say anything about the LDS church. But where the church officially endorses the group that believes that unqualified (and anti-Islam) charlatan is an example of careful constitutional study, well, that’s something different. By pointing church members to Jen Brown’s organization, the Utah Area Presidency is also pointing them to David Barton. And his views not only fly in the fact of constitutional interpretation, they fly in the fact of the interfaith work that the Church has done with various mosques and Islamic leaders and Muslims throughout the country and the world.
A Deficient Pamphlet
The second problem isn’t nearly as bad as the implicit endorsement of David Barton, but it is still pretty bad. The Utah Area Presidency encourages families to “[h]ave a family home evening and read and discuss the booklet ‘Why I Love America’ which can be digitally downloaded or hard copies ordered at WhyILoveAmerica.com.” (FWIW, I’m not in love with church leaders suggesting that people buy a particular private product.)
The booklet is essentially a children’s book, and you can find it here. And leaving aside its ideological leanings, it is filled with nonpartisan factual errors, basically from the start. For instance, on page 3 it says, “In the 1600’s and 1700’s, America was inhabited by Native Americans but did not have an organized government.” That’s just entirely wrong. Many native groups had governments. In fact, there’s evidence that the Framers used the Iroquois Confederacy’s federalist approach as one of its models in designing the Constitution.
Later, the pamphlet gives a quotation that, it says, was attributed to Thomas Jefferson: “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything you have.”
Did Jefferson say (or write) that? Absolutely not. According to the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, the statement first appeared in print in 1952 in a book by Paul Harvey published by the conservative Heritage Foundation. The author is technically right that it was attributed to Thomas Jefferson. But not until 2005. And it’s clearly a fake attribution. So why include it, even with the caveat that it was attributed to him?
Two pages later, it quotes Voltaire as saying “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it!” Did Voltaire actually say that? Also no.
Then we have description of the Bill of Rights. These are naturally simplistic and summarized, given that this is aimed at children. But there’s an odd omission from the 1st Amendment section, which is fairly detailed. It says the 1st Amendment provides “[p]rotection of the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, right to petition, and the right to peacefully assemble.” But it omits the Establishment Clause. (Honestly, this would strike me as a simple oversight except for the explicit detail here, and the fact that ignoring the Establishment Clause is basically David Barton’s raison d’être.)
So What Should the Church Do?
Honestly, I’m not sure. The cat’s out of the proverbial bag, given the Area Presidency’s letter. But the institutional church needs to do something, because it cannot endorse an organization that supports the unhistorical and discriminatory views of David Barton. And between the version of history he propounds and the massive inaccuracies in the booklet the church is sending around, it’s preparing members to endorse Area Man Constitutionalism (“Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be”).
So the church needs to distance itself from Why I Love America. Explicitly. And I know church leaders don’t like to undercut what other church leaders say and do, but unless the institutional church makes clear that the Utah Area Presidency went rogue in a way the church disagrees with, members, non-members, and the press will (justifiably) attribute the views of Why I Love America to the church. If the church tries to ignore it and hope it goes away, it will not go away.
Is it important for members in Utah to celebrate American Founders Month? To learn more about the Constitution? Then the church should put together a curriculum and speakers who can help with that. And here it has plenty of choices: it can assemble good material that already exists. It can commission material and speakers from church members and Utahns. Look, if you want a speaker who can actually speak to the Constitution and its history, both BYU and the University of Utah have excellent law schools. I would assume that every college and university in Utah has history and political science departments. Heck, the church could turn to Senator Romney or retired federal judge Thomas Griffith (who is, honestly, an amazing and engaging speaker).
I have no idea how the church can unring the bell that the Utah Area Presidency rang. But I do know that it is critical, for the church and for its members, that the bell be unrung.
[fn1] The memo actually says “American Founders and Constitution Month,” but the bill doesn’t include the third or fourth word in its designation.
[fn2] To be completely clear, I’m a big fan of the U.S. and its devotion to the rule of law. I didn’t become an attorney and I didn’t become a law professor just because. Similarly, I’m committed to helping the church be its best self. And I fear that this particular initiative will undercut both, but most critically, will undercut the church’s standing and legitimacy.
[fn3] It’s also worth noting that it appears that at least a couple committee members are election deniers, according to the Salt Lake Tribune. In fact, Callister makes a big deal out of the fact that the organization is not partisan. And it absolutely is not—as a tax-exempt org, it cannot endorse or oppose candidates for office. But not being partisan is different from not being ideological. And based both on the people involved and on the documents, this is a deeply ideological group, at very best flirting with far-right ideologies.
Photo by Anthony Garand on Unsplash