Mr. Cannon presented another thought provoking article, but it seems that the article by Rev. Richard John Neuhaus leaves a conundrum: If we in Utah who belong to the predominant church, show tolerance by doing as Joseph Smith taught, i.e. give all men the right to worship as they wish, but others deny us the right to worship as we please, what are we to do? Do we quietly fume as insults are hurled? Do we simply state the doctrines that guide us? Do we openly and forcefully attack those that attack us?

To me, the correct response depends on the attacker. When someone criticizes the Church when that person is ignorant of the doctrines of the Church, then a simple statement of fact should clear up the misunderstanding. If the attack is deliberate and the attacker knows that he is using lies to incite feelings against the Church, then should we still be tolerant and sit quietly?

For that matter, when should a "common" member of a church speak up in defense of that church? Should a "common" member simply wait for someone in authority to act? What part does "testimony" play in our lives?

Dear Joe,

Your lack of tolerance for anything un-religious is definitely an important difference between us.

When LDS learn to accept all religions as the "true religions" I may then start listening to them.

NOT logically possible.

if there is only ONE god, then the can not be a plurality of true religions,

but a plurality of men can have plurality of beliefs in God.

A God can not be God of anarchy and chaos.

or he would ceased to be God.

Therefore there can only be ONE religion that contains the FULNESS of TRUTH,

only one that is FULLY God's.

All of which seems to ignore the central role of each individual's relationship with God. Pointing to something external as reality seems to preclude or moot any need for internal examination.