Appearance
Competing Spiritual Claims
The claim:
"Every major religion has members who claim the same thing: God or God's spirit bore witness to them that their religion, prophet/pope/leaders, book(s), and teachings are true."[1]
The CES Letter presents four parallel testimonies -- from an LDS member, an FLDS member, an RLDS member, and a member of The Latter Day Church of Jesus Christ -- all using the same formula: "I know Joseph Smith was a true prophet. I know [my church] is the one and only true Church."[2]
The argument: if every religion claims spiritual confirmation, then spiritual experience is worthless for finding truth. Same method, different results, therefore the method is broken.
Is the premise true? Is the logic sound?
The premise is wrong
Not "every major religion" claims what the CES Letter says
The CES Letter asserts that "every major religion" uses the same method -- spiritual feelings -- to confirm truth. It never documents this. Not a single testimony from a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or Jew is cited. The only testimonies it quotes are from four Restoration splinter groups that share the same scriptures, the same founding prophet, and 90% of the same theology.[2:1]
That's not "every major religion." That's one religious family arguing about succession.
Here's what the world's major religions actually teach about how truth is known:
| Religion | Primary epistemological method | Claims spiritual witness confirms exclusive truth? |
|---|---|---|
| Buddhism | Meditation, direct experience of suffering and impermanence | No -- generally rejects personal God delivering revelation[3] |
| Hinduism | Multiple paths (jnana, bhakti, karma, raja yoga) | No -- most traditions accept many valid paths to the divine |
| Judaism | Torah study, communal interpretation, legal reasoning | No -- generally does not seek converts or ask people to pray for confirmation[3:1] |
| Confucianism | Ethical practice, ritual propriety, classical learning | No -- not theistic in the Western sense |
| Islam | Submission to Allah's will as revealed in the Quran | Closer -- but the shahada is a declaration of allegiance, not a prayer-and-feeling confirmation test |
| Catholicism | Scripture, tradition, magisterial authority, reason | Partially -- emphasizes the magisterium and sacred tradition alongside personal faith |
| Latter-day Saint | Study, prayer, and personal revelation through the Holy Ghost | Yes -- uniquely emphasizes personal revelation for every individual member |
The LDS focus on personal revelation through prayer is distinctive. As one analysis noted: "Revelation from a supernatural source plays a less important role in other religious traditions."[3:2]
Buddhism doesn't ask anyone to pray about the Dharma and wait for a burning in the bosom. The CES Letter flattens genuinely different epistemological traditions into a single caricature -- and then attacks the caricature.
The logic doesn't hold
The "different doctors" fallacy
Grant the CES Letter its premise. Suppose every religion did use the same method and reach different conclusions. Would that prove the method is broken?
No.
| Claim | Logical structure | What the conclusion actually means |
|---|---|---|
| CES Letter's argument | People in different religions have spiritual experiences confirming different things, therefore spiritual experience is unreliable | "Conflicting outputs = broken method" |
| Same logic applied to medicine | Different doctors examine the same patient and reach different diagnoses, therefore medical diagnosis is unreliable | Nobody accepts this |
| Same logic applied to science | Scientists examine the same data and reach different conclusions, therefore the scientific method is unreliable | This would disqualify the most productive epistemological tool in history |
| Same logic applied to eyewitness testimony | Eyewitnesses to the same event give conflicting accounts, therefore eyewitness testimony is unreliable | Courts use eyewitness testimony every day -- with discernment |
Disagreement tells you discernment is required. It doesn't tell you the method is worthless.[4]
If conflicting conclusions disqualified a method, no method of knowing anything would survive. People disagree about ethics, history, science, and the meaning of their own sense perceptions. The CES Letter applies a standard to spiritual experience that it would never apply anywhere else.
The philosophical literature says otherwise
The CES Letter presents "competing claims" as though it's a knockout punch. In philosophy of religion, it's called the Problem of Religious Diversity -- and the best minds in the field have studied it for over a century.
Plantinga: religious belief can be "properly basic"
Alvin Plantinga -- one of the most influential epistemologists of the 20th century -- argued that belief in God can be rational without being derived from evidence or argument. Just as you don't need to prove that other minds exist before reasonably believing they do, you don't need to prove God's existence before reasonably believing in Him. Plantinga called these "properly basic" beliefs.[4:1]
On disagreement, Plantinga was direct: if religious diversity defeats religious belief, it equally defeats moral, political, and philosophical convictions -- because people disagree about all of those too. Two incompatible beliefs can share identical internal markers yet differ based on whether the cognitive faculties that produced them functioned properly. The bare fact of disagreement doesn't automatically tell you which one is wrong.[5]
Alston: the circularity problem cuts both ways
William Alston demonstrated that mystical perception is epistemically parallel to sense perception. How do you prove your eyes give accurate information? You verify sight by touching -- but you verify touch by seeing. Every basic way of knowing is ultimately circular in its justification. Religious experience is not uniquely vulnerable.[6]
On religious diversity specifically, Alston concluded that the existence of conflicting perceptual reports does not prove that no perception is reliable -- it proves that evaluation is required.[6:1]
James: spiritual experiences carry genuine knowledge
William James catalogued hundreds of spiritual experiences across traditions and identified a feature that separates them from ordinary emotion: noetic quality. Mystical experiences "seem to those who experience them to be also states of knowledge." They carry "a curious sense of authority."[7]
James, writing from a secular philosophical perspective, concluded that mystical states "when well developed, usually are, and have the right to be, absolutely authoritative over the individuals to whom they come."[7:1]
The CES Letter reduces all testimony to "feelings." James showed that genuine spiritual experience operates as cognition -- it delivers knowledge, not just emotion.
Swinburne: the principle of credulity
Richard Swinburne offered a simple framework: "If it seems to a person that something is the case, then, in the absence of special considerations, it is reasonable for that person to believe that it is the case."[8]
Experiences should be trusted unless there are specific reasons -- defeaters -- to doubt them. The mere existence of people who have different experiences is not a sufficient defeater. The CES Letter never provides an actual defeater. It just points to disagreement.
| Philosopher | Key argument | Implication for the CES Letter |
|---|---|---|
| Alvin Plantinga | Religious beliefs can be "properly basic" -- rational without external proof | Disagreement alone doesn't defeat justified belief |
| William Alston | Mystical perception is epistemically parallel to sense perception | The diversity problem doesn't prove all spiritual experience is unreliable |
| William James | Spiritual experiences carry noetic quality -- genuine knowledge, not just emotion | The CES Letter's "feelings = testimony" equation is a category error |
| Richard Swinburne | Experiences should be trusted absent specific defeaters | The CES Letter needs actual defeaters, not just the existence of disagreement |
The CES Letter doesn't engage with any of this. The philosophical literature -- spanning over a century of rigorous work -- says otherwise.[9]
LDS theology already accounts for competing claims
Truth in other religions is a Latter-day Saint doctrine
The CES Letter frames competing spiritual experiences as a devastating problem. LDS theology predicts them.
The 1978 First Presidency Statement:
"The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God's light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations."[10]
This isn't a modern concession. It's rooted in scripture from the Book of Mormon itself.
Alma 29:8 -- "The Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have."
Moroni 7:16 -- "The Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil."
D&C 84:46 -- "The Spirit giveth light to every man that cometh into the world."[11]
If a Catholic feels God's love during Mass, LDS theology says: of course. The Light of Christ is real and it operates everywhere. If a Muslim experiences peace during prayer, that's exactly what the doctrine predicts.
President Hinckley put it practically: "You bring all the good that you have, and let us see if we can add to it."
The CES Letter treats competing spiritual experiences as a problem. LDS doctrine treats them as a feature.
What the Light of Christ explains -- and what requires more
LDS theology distinguishes between two forms of divine influence:
| Source | Scope | Function | Scriptural basis |
|---|---|---|---|
| Light of Christ | Universal -- given to every person born | Prompts toward goodness, helps discern good from evil | Moroni 7:16; D&C 84:46; John 1:9 |
| Holy Ghost | Specific -- available to all seekers, gift given to confirmed members | Testifies of specific truths, reveals knowledge, gives spiritual gifts | D&C 8:2-3; Moroni 10:3-5; Acts 2:38 |
A person of any faith who feels drawn toward truth, beauty, and goodness is experiencing the Light of Christ. A person who receives a specific witness that the Book of Mormon is true is experiencing the Holy Ghost confirming a proposition.[12]
The CES Letter lumps these together. The distinction is the whole point.
What the CES Letter's examples actually show
Restoration splinter groups -- not "every religion"
Look at the four testimonies the CES Letter presents. All four believe in the Book of Mormon. All four accept Joseph Smith as a prophet. All four share the vast majority of Restoration theology.[2:2]
The disagreement isn't about whether the Book of Mormon is true. It's about post-1844 succession -- who leads the church now.
| Group | Accepts Book of Mormon | Accepts Joseph Smith | Disagreement |
|---|---|---|---|
| LDS (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) | Yes | Yes | Brigham Young succeeded Joseph; continuing succession through the Twelve |
| FLDS | Yes | Yes | Warren Jeffs is prophet; polygamy is essential |
| RLDS / Community of Christ | Yes | Yes | Joseph Smith III was rightful successor |
| LDCJC | Yes | Yes | Matthew Gill is current seer and translator |
If the Spirit has confirmed the Book of Mormon's truth to people across multiple groups, that's convergent evidence for the Book of Mormon -- which is what Moroni's promise actually addresses.
The question of which institution holds prophetic authority is a separate question requiring separate investigation. Moroni 10:3-5 never claimed to answer it.[13]
Runnells noticed this too: "Praying about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon does not follow that the LDS Church is true. The FLDS also believe in the Book of Mormon."[2:3] He's right -- and that's a far narrower problem than "every major religion has spiritual experiences."
The CES Letter's own examples -- all Restoration groups -- actually strengthen the case for the Book of Mormon's truthfulness by showing multiple independent communities converging on that claim.
The emotion/revelation distinction
D&C 8:2-3 -- mind AND heart
The CES Letter's argument depends on reducing testimony to "feelings." LDS scripture says something different:
"Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost."[14]
Mind and heart. Intellectual clarity and spiritual confirmation. The canonical description of revelation includes a cognitive component.
D&C 9:7-9 adds the process: "You must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right."[15]
Study comes first. Feeling follows study. This is not "pray and accept whatever you feel."
Elder Boyd K. Packer acknowledged the difficulty directly:
"The spiritual part of us and the emotional part of us are so closely linked that it is possible to mistake an emotional impulse for something spiritual."[16]
The CES Letter quotes this as a damning admission. It's actually a description of a skill every truth-seeking tradition requires -- distinguishing signal from noise. Scientists must separate real results from artifacts. Historians must distinguish reliable sources from unreliable ones. Seekers of spiritual knowledge must distinguish emotion from revelation. The need for discernment is not evidence the method is broken.
(For the full treatment of elevation emotion, Paul Dunn, and "bearing testimony," see Reliability of Spiritual Witnesses.)
What Moroni 10:3-5 actually promises
The CES Letter reduces Moroni's promise to: read, pray, get a feeling. The actual text demands far more.
Seven conditions -- not one
"I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things...that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men...and ponder it in your hearts. And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost."[17]
| Condition | What it requires |
|---|---|
| Read | Engage with the Book of Mormon's actual text |
| Remember God's mercy | Place the text in the context of God's dealings with humanity |
| Ponder | Intellectual engagement -- think about what you've read |
| Ask God | Active prayer, not passive hoping |
| Sincere heart | Genuine desire to know, not a "gotcha" experiment |
| Real intent | Willingness to act on whatever God reveals |
| Faith in Christ | Not faith in the outcome you prefer |
"Real intent" is the condition critics skip. It means you're willing to change your life if the answer is yes. That's not a passive experiment. It's a moral commitment.[18]
The promise is broader than "a feeling"
The word "manifest" in verse 4 means "to show plainly; to make to appear." Verses 6-18 -- which critics rarely quote -- describe the result through spiritual gifts: prophecy, healing, discernment, teaching ability. Not warm sensations.[13:1]
Verse 5 expands the scope: "by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things."
The CES Letter argues against a version of Moroni's promise that the text itself doesn't support.
The positive case
Every "problem" the CES Letter raises is something LDS theology already predicted
| Phenomenon the CES Letter cites | CES Letter conclusion | What LDS theology actually predicts |
|---|---|---|
| People in many religions feel God's influence | The Spirit is unreliable | The Light of Christ reaches everyone (Moroni 7:16; D&C 84:46) -- expected |
| Members of different faiths feel truth in their worship | No religion can be singled out | God distributes truth broadly (Alma 29:8; 1978 First Presidency Statement) -- expected |
| Some people mistake emotion for revelation | Revelation doesn't exist | Discernment is a spiritual skill that must be developed (D&C 50:17-22; 1 John 4:1) -- expected |
| Conflicting groups claim spiritual confirmation | The method is broken | Opposition and deception exist; testing is required (D&C 50:2-3; 2 Cor. 11:14) -- expected |
A framework that predicts its own challenges is harder to dismiss than the CES Letter suggests.
Faith as a moral act
Terryl Givens reframed the epistemological question:
"There must be grounds for doubt as well as belief in order to render the choice more truly a choice... An overwhelming preponderance of evidence on either side would make our choice as meaningless as would a loaded gun pointed at our heads."[19]
The existence of competing claims is not a bug in the system. It is a feature of a framework designed to make faith a genuine moral act -- freely chosen, not compelled.
The CES Letter demands a level of certainty that would make the choice meaningless. Latter-day Saint theology demands something harder: choosing to believe when the evidence is strong but not overwhelming, when other explanations exist but don't satisfy, when the risk of being wrong is real but the cost of not choosing is worse.
Bottom line: The "testimony roulette" argument rests on a false premise (not all religions use the same epistemological method), a logical fallacy (conflicting conclusions don't invalidate a method), and a misunderstanding of LDS theology (which explicitly predicts truth in other religions). The CES Letter's only examples are Restoration splinter groups -- which actually strengthen the case for the Book of Mormon by converging on its truth. Philosophers like Plantinga, Alston, James, and Swinburne have studied competing spiritual claims for decades and concluded that diversity doesn't defeat religious experience. LDS scripture has always said mind and heart.
Runnells, CES Letter (2017), "Testimony & Spiritual Witness," no. 1, p. 75. ↩︎
Runnells, CES Letter (2017), "Testimony & Spiritual Witness," no. 2, pp. 75-76. All four testimonies are from Restoration splinter groups -- no testimonies from Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, or other non-Restoration religions are presented. ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
"Does Every Religion Believe the Holy Spirit Testifies of Truth?" Debunking the CES Letter. https://debunking-cesletter.com/testimony-spiritual-witness-1/does-every-religion-believe-the-holy-spirit-testifies-of-truth/ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000). Plantinga argues that belief in God can be "properly basic" -- justified without external evidence through a reliable cognitive faculty -- and that disagreement alone does not defeat warranted belief. ↩︎ ↩︎
"Reformed Epistemology," Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://iep.utm.edu/ref-epis/ ↩︎
William P. Alston, Perceiving God: The Epistemology of Religious Experience (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991). Alston argues that mystical perception plays the same justificatory role for beliefs about God that sense perception plays for beliefs about the physical world -- and that the circularity problem applies equally to both. ↩︎ ↩︎
William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature (New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1902). James identified four marks of mystical experience -- ineffability, noetic quality, transiency, and passivity -- and concluded that such states carry genuine knowledge, not mere emotion. ↩︎ ↩︎
Richard Swinburne, The Existence of God, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2004). Swinburne's Principle of Credulity holds that experiences should be trusted in the absence of specific defeaters. ↩︎
Mark Webb, "Religious Experience," Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religious-experience/ ↩︎
First Presidency Statement, "God's Love for All Mankind," February 15, 1978. https://archives.byui.edu/s/public/page/1978-statement-god-love-for-all-mankind ↩︎
Moroni 7:16; D&C 84:46-48; John 1:9. The Light of Christ is doctrinally distinct from the gift of the Holy Ghost and is given universally. ↩︎
"Detailed Response to CES Letter, Testimony and Spiritual Witness," FAIR. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Detailed_response_to_CES_Letter,_Testimony_and_Spiritual_Witness ↩︎
Alan Taylor Farnes, "A Fresh Approach to Moroni's Promise," Religious Educator 20, no. 2 (2019). Farnes argues that "manifest" means "to show plainly" and that verses 6-18 expand the promise into the domain of spiritual gifts. https://rsc.byu.edu/vol-20-no-2-2019/scripture-note-fresh-approach-moronis-promise ↩︎ ↩︎
Doctrine and Covenants 8:2-3. "Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart." ↩︎
Doctrine and Covenants 9:7-9. "You must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right." ↩︎
Boyd K. Packer, "The Candle of the Lord," Ensign, January 1983. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1983/01/the-candle-of-the-lord ↩︎
Moroni 10:3-5. ↩︎
Greg Wilkinson, "Reading and Receiving: An Interpretation of Moroni's Promise(s)," Religious Educator 17, no. 1 (2016): 82-91. Wilkinson identifies two distinct promises in Moroni 10:3-5 -- one intellectual, one spiritual -- with "real intent" as the pivotal condition. https://rsc.byu.edu/vol-17-no-1-2016/reading-receiving-interpretation-moronis-promises ↩︎
Terryl L. Givens, "Letter to a Doubter," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 4 (2013): 129-140. https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/letter-to-a-doubter/ ↩︎