I suspect “Beck et al.” would answer A, as would a lot of other LDS people, but the nuance of what is meant might vary a lot.

I think the root he reason why LDS people would feel the U.S. Constitution is special and deserving of care and attention is found in LDS scripture which teaches that God himself established the Constitution. (See Doctrine & Covenants 101:77, 80.)

The too-frequent (and perhaps lazy or over-simplified) extrapolation which inflates that scriptural statement into a worldview that elevates the Constitution to some sort of holy, unchangeable, canonical document misses other passages of LDS scripture that clarify or specify exactly what it is about the Constitution that is special and should be preserved. Specifically, the unique defense-worthy character of the Constitution lies in that portion which “support[s] that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges,” and it “belongs to all mankind.” (Doctrine & Covenants 98:5].

To me, then, the thing that is most important about the Constitution is its fundamental support for the principle of individual agency and choice. These statements correspond to Article of Faith 11, which avers that Mormons believe we should let all people “worship how, where, or what they may.”

Sometimes, it seems like those who stump the hardest for “preserve and protect the Constitution” are doing so to accomplish exactly the opposite purpose that the most vital part of the Constitution is meant to accomplish.

I am also very aware I am in the minority in thinking this.

I think that the official position of the brethren is that the Constitution is an inspired, not a holy document. I think this is the only way to justify its active support of slavery and white supremacy. To label it as holy is tantamount to canonization which I would completely reject.

“psuedo-Mormonism like the US Constitution being a holy document”

I find this relevant for two reasons; 1) the notion of the sacred/holy nature of the U.S. Constitution is not up for debate, according to Beck and his audience, and 2) the notion of the sacred/holy nature of the U.S. Constitution seems to be generally settled among LDS leadership, if not among the membership.

The relevance here can hardly be overlooked, since Christopher’s initial intent was, I think, to get at the appeal of Beck’s constitutional Mormon fundamentalism (fair to coin that term?). I think it reasonable to assume, at least in part, that the foundation of Beck’s world view is set upon the bedrock of the divine origins of the Constitution as a document.

In short: U.S. Constitution = Holy document?
a) Official LDS doctrine
b) Cultural LDS mindset
c) Mormon folklore
d) Fringe fundamentalist staple
e) Any combination of the above

Other follow-ups:
To what extent is the concept of Divine Constitutionalism central to other Mormon sub-cultures or political strata?
In what ways do personal (read: partly line) political views affect the interpretation of the divine nature of the U.S. Constitution?
Are differences among political ideologies surrounding the meaning of the Constitution deep enough to negate the utility of holding it up as a Holy document?