The first task of the day: to set ground rules for the discussion. At the top of the list was an agreement that while they could discuss what transpired at a later time, they could not attach names or identifying information to any of the approximately two dozen participants.

Such is the nature of Utah's religious and cultural divide — a subject so highly charged and deeply ingrained that few feel free to speak candidly outside their own circles unless they can remain anonymous.

The discussion begins with Zamora asking the group to move beyond "tolerance" in their view of others and strive for acceptance, noting no one wants to simply be tolerated by another.

Prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination are also addressed and defined through discussion, and participants acknowledge they each have their own set of prejudices, though they may not realize the depth or breadth of their perceptions. Sitting around the perimeter of the room, participants are asked questions and asked to move to different chairs depending on their answers to help define their own fears.

By the time lunch is served, most are learning the names of other participants, but several are discouraged that no substantive discussion about religious differences has occurred. One identified it early on as the "elephant in the room" that no one wants to talk about. Even with a desire to discuss the topic, participants have spent five hours in the same room talking and still haven't addressed it.

Trying to peel off the layers of conditioned response and the niceties Utahns have insulated their real feelings with is excruciating, emotional work. Some are tired and want to leave, but everyone committed to stay until the end. So they stick with it.

With less than an hour before the workshop ends, Zamora breaks things open by saying he believes religion and sexuality — specifically homosexuality — are the two topics which generate the greatest prejudice and stereotyping for Utahns.

Then he asks participants to consider the following question: Given the choice, which would you least like to see your child do: 1. marry someone of a different faith 2. marry someone of a different race, 3. marry someone out of guilt or under duress, or 3. "marry" someone of the same sex.

The answers made it clear that few could actually predict how their fellow participants would answer, despite the fact that the faith, family dynamic, profession and sexual orientation of several of the participants had come to the fore during previous discussions.

The result: a surprising candor during the last half-hour of discussion.

"It's now or never," said one, like a kid in the pool who had been contemplating the high dive and was now standing at the edge of the board. The comment played out an observation made earlier by another: "It's not courage if you don't feel the fear."