.

What was he thinking?

When he was governor of Utah, Mike Leavitt held a series of "early morning seminary" meetings with top aides. They discussed doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and tried to identify "just and holy" principles to guide state government, using stories from the Book of Mormon and directives from the Doctrine and Covenants, which faithful Mormons believe to contain revelations from God.

When the Salt Lake Tribune ran across transcripts of the meetings, Leavitt, now secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, asked that they be kept private. The Utah State Archives denied his request and said the documents were public.

We understand why Leavitt would want to keep the transcripts under wraps. They're embarrassing -- not because a person should not have faith but because, in America, an office-holder should not be mixing his personal religion with governance.

Broad principles of faith are one thing, like the ones referred to by Mitt Romney in his recent "Faith in America" speech. But seeking specific political answers in a set of Mormon scriptures to the exclusion of other traditions goes too far.

For those who disagree with this assertion, try a little thought experiment: change the scripture. Let's say Leavitt was searching Islam's Sharia law -- and that alone -- to enlighten himself as to how to govern the State of Utah. Now how do you feel about it?

This matter seems quite clear. Had Leavitt been seeking political enlightenment or general principles of public morality in a variety of religious traditions, few would have a problem. But he appears to have been scouring Mormon doctrine alone, which not only places him out of bounds politically but opens Mormons in general to accusations that they can't function in a secular system or that they secretly desire the imposition of their version of theocracy in America.

If the early-morning seminary meetings were designed to ingratiate Leavitt to a majority of voters in Utah, that would at least be politically understandable. But he appears to have been giving special weight to Mormon doctrine because he believes it to be the revealed word of God. For a high-ranking officer in a secular system, this is bad form.

While Mormon doctrine is seen by many Utahns as the revealed word of God, and while it is clearly influential in the makeup of individual character, it simply does not belong overtly in political discourse as a basis for framing public policy. To place it there is undisciplined.

The transcripts cover five meetings in 1996 that focused mainly on preparing Leavitt's inaugural address for his second term. He and several key aides, met to discuss the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants, and explored how these might be applied to government.

We don't disagree with Leavitt's comment: "Our society has developed a misplaced politeness which says we shouldn't talk about God because it might offend someone. Heaven save the society that's too polite to speak about God."

But that isn't the point. This is not merely talking about God. Our nation's founders -- at least the prevailing majority of them -- wanted to draw strict distinctions between church and state, and more specifically, between any particular church and the state. A general, national faith is one thing, as Romney eloquently expressed. But drawing specifics from one particular church is something else.

Church and state should happily co-exist, but they should not intermingle. This is not an attack on religion, it is a way to provide a level playing field for all religions. It is insurance that one religion will not be used as a tool of the state against others. Mormons, a group once persecuted for their beliefs, ought to understand the importance of keeping the government scrupulously neutral.

Leavitt's "seminary meetings" seem to go beyond what most Americans would see as neutrality. The closed and private nature of the meetings, and their focus on only one denomination, probably would make many people uneasy.

The meetings were not just some old pals sharing their common religious heritage. Leavitt involved top aides with a view toward shaping public policy in Utah. Worse, the nature of the meetings -- and Leavitt's recent plea for privacy -- identifies them not as private but secret.

Why were the meetings recorded? Clearly so that the ideas discussed could be translated into governance. Leavitt and his team sought "bilingual" language to convey Mormon principles to non-members.

Of course it's true that principles like individual freedom, accountability, equality, stewardship, marriage, unity, goodness, heritage, worship, safety and a sense of order (headings selected by the study group for emphasis in government) can be found in many religions. So there should have been no reason for secrecy.

Why, then, did Leavitt repeatedly ask those involved to keep the discussions confidential? "Can I suggest we protect these commentaries?" Leavitt asked at one point. He said there were "thoughts and feelings and emotions and so forth here that just go way beyond anything that I'd be comfortable" being made public.

A good ethical rule of thumb is this: If you want to keep something secret, you're probably doing something wrong, and you know it. These "seminary meetings" went over the line, and the governor, in his heart, knew it. Many of the comments were personal, "in some cases even sacred," Leavitt said.

Well, if they're that holy, they shouldn't be exposed to the corrupting influence of politics.

Let's hope politicians take a lesson from this. America welcomes people of all faiths, and of none. Our leaders must be meticulous about maintaining neutral ground.

----

Was it appropriate for former Gov. Mike Leavitt to use Mormon scripture in developing public policy? Send your comments to dhpolls@heraldextra.com or call 344-2942. Please leave your name, hometown and phone number with your comments. E-mail comments should not exceed 100 words; voicemail comments should be no longer than 30 seconds. Anonymous and unverifiable responses will not be published.

You can also comment online at heraldextra.com, under the "Polls" tab. The Daily Herald will publish comments on January 13.