by

There are a bunch of scolds out there on Twitter and on Russell’s post trying to say that nobody can criticize what happened in the church leadership’s meetings with Trump because it was part of a longstanding tradition of being gracious hosts to sitting presidents, regardless of deep disagreements that might exist between them on policy and other matters. When it comes to Eyring and Nelson “express[ing] their appreciation to the president for the efforts by his administration to protect religious freedom,” the scolds are completely wrong.

I actually dissent somewhat from many of my liberal friends in not being outraged that the church leadership would meet with Trump, or do some token photo ops with him. As the church has defensively been at pains to point out, church leaders have met with many past presidents of both parties. Playing nice when someone as powerful as POTUS comes to town is morally troubling, but in a way that is unfortunately quite banal, and something that reasonable people could reconcile themselves to doing for various “greater good” purposes. I get that. I truly do. I think Trump is irredeemably gross and dangerously autocratic, but rage at the brethren for hosting him in SLC is misplaced.

That said, they did not have to choose to praise him specifically on one of the most terrible things about him! The key to nuanced moral balancing between duty to be a good host and duty to speak truth in situations like this is to find some nice thing you can say about a person that’s true and, in the spirit of goodwill, maybe temper or leave unsaid some criticisms. As much as I hate Trump, even I can imagine several nice things one could say about him:

“That was nice how you have said it is your goal to bring back jobs. Honest work is a foundational principle of our Mormon ethic of self-reliance.” (notice by wording it as “said” we make it a true statement–again, nuance!)

“We pray for the success of America, and the wisdom of its leaders from local right up to you as President.”

“Melania always looks so radiant as First Lady. We appreciate the sacrifices that must be required of her and Baron during your service as president.”

“I really like what you’ve done with the oval office decorations!”

“We bless you to return home on Air Force One in safety.”

(ok those last two were a little snarky)

But here’s how the church’s public affairs reports what was actually said:

“President Eyring and President Nelson expressed their appreciation to the president for the efforts by his administration to protect religious freedom.”

No. You do not praise his stance on religious freedom when he literally supports banning an entire religion from entering the country! No! There is NO bridge-building, “was just trying to be a gracious host” type excuse for that. None. It is never necessary for the sake of being a gracious host to say something not only wildly false, but also damaging to especially vulnerable people, and also diametrically opposed to one of your own stated core values. It’s just completely unnecessary.

Am I speaking in hyperbole when I say that he “literally supports banning an entire religion from entering the country”? Nope. Here’s the quote from his own campaign press release (emphasis added):

“Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”

And of course he tried to implement what his own staff person at the time Rudy Giuliani said was a version of this Muslim Travel Ban upon taking office, and was only stopped because of court rulings (we’re now on version 3 of the ban, which courts have allowed to provisionally go into effect pending further review).

At the time of Trump’s “total and complete shutdown” statement, the church took the unusual step of addressing it (somewhat charitably declining to mention Trump by name) in a sharply worded press release.. It begins, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is neutral in regard to party politics and election campaigns. However, [the Church] is not neutral in relation to religious freedom.” (emphasis added) It goes on to quote two historical passages declaring the centrality of religious freedom–including explicitly for Muslims–in our history:

If it has been demonstrated that I have been willing to die for a “Mormon,” I am bold to declare before Heaven that I am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a good man of any denomination; for the same principle which would trample upon the rights of the Latter-day Saints would trample upon the rights of the Roman Catholics, or of any other denomination who may be unpopular and too weak to defend themselves. It is a love of liberty which inspires my soul — civil and religious liberty to the whole of the human race. —Joseph Smith, 1843

Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Nauvoo, that the Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Latter-day Saints, Quakers, Episcopals, Universalists, Unitarians, Mohammedans [Muslims], and all other religious sects and denominations whatever, shall have free toleration, and equal privileges in this city … —Ordinance in Relation to Religious Societies, City of Nauvoo, [Illinois] headquarters of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, March 1, 1841

Lest you think perhaps enough time has passed since that infamous quote about banning Muslims (though not from the ongoing attempts at implementing it) that the brethren might simply be letting bygones be bygones, there is also the outrageous incident of religious bigotry that happened just last week, in which Trump tweeted inflammatory videos that purported to show Muslim violence towards Christians. One purporting to show a “Muslim migrant” attack a Christian boy with crutches was no such thing. One extremely graphic one appears to be an actual snuff film. All were so egregiously hateful that my sister reports that she was blocked from seeing them (unclear by whom exactly, Twitter or her family’s internet filter).

These are not the actions of someone who should be praised for “efforts by his administration to protect religious freedom.” How is this even in dispute?

This treachery towards our Muslim brothers and sisters is especially heartbreaking considering the many steps our church and our church community have taken to build bridges between the two faiths.

After we have spent decades assuring Muslims that they have a friend and ally in us, that they can turn to use for refuge and respect even when the whole rest of our nation seems to be against them, can we turn around and “praise” efforts to exclude them? Can we as Mormons say that constant bigoted statements about Muslims, attempts to keep Muslims out of the country, and lets add to the list endorsement of a US Senate candidate who believes duly-elected Muslim U.S. citizens should be barred from serving in congress, constitute praiseworthy “efforts…to protect religious freedom”?

We have a long track record of being so much better than this when it comes to our Muslim brothers and sisters. We should be better than this now.