With Real Intent

Start here

How We Know Things

The method the Church teaches returns yes for every religion that uses it. Read this one first.

Why this page comes first

Every other page on this site can be answered with one sentence: but I have a testimony. This page is about that sentence. Until this question is settled, nothing else here can land, which is why it is first.

It is also the most ironclad argument on this site. It does not depend on any disputed history, any critic’s research, or any document that could be argued over. It requires only two facts nobody on either side denies: the Church teaches a method for knowing it is true, and other religions teach the same method to their people. Everything on this page follows from simply watching what the method does.

The point in one sentence

The method the Church teaches for knowing it is true produces the same result for people in mutually contradictory religions, which means the feeling cannot be what tells them which one is right.

The method being taught

Moroni 10:4 to 5: ask God "with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ," and He "will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost."

And what it confirms is exclusive. D&C 1:30 calls this "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth."

Belief tracks geography, not evidence

If a spiritual witness identified the true religion, belief would not cluster this precisely by birthplace.

73%
of people live where their religion is the local majority
97%
of Hindus live in just three countries
87%
of Christians live in Christian-majority nations

Source: Pew Research, Global Religious Landscape

The problem

The question worth sitting with

If you had been born in Riyadh to a devout Muslim family, prayed with the same sincerity, and felt the same peace confirming the Quran, would that have been the Holy Ghost?

The common rebuttals

"Other people's experiences might be real too, just incomplete." This is the most thoughtful answer available. But it does not solve the practical problem. If the same feeling confirms "Joseph Smith was a true prophet" for one person and "Joseph Smith was a false prophet" for another, the feeling cannot be what distinguishes them.

"Doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith." President Uchtdorf, October 2013, speaking warmly, in a talk written to welcome doubters back. And in that same talk he acknowledged that "there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes." Read those two lines together. The talk concedes the very thing most doubts are about, then asks you to aim your skepticism at the doubts instead of the mistakes.

Skepticism that only ever points one direction is not a test of anything. It is a way of never running the test.

"You have to actually do it properly." Notice the structure. A positive result confirms the method. A negative result is blamed on the seeker. That means no possible outcome could count against it.

The method returns yes for every religion that uses it, including the ones the Church teaches are false.

A test that cannot produce a no is not a test. It is a ritual for producing a yes.

Why this should make you question

If the same feeling confirms every religion that asks for it, the feeling cannot be what settles which record is true. And a testimony is taught to be exactly that: the thing that outranks any record.

I ran this experiment exactly as prescribed, for months, and got the opposite of the promise. The only explanation the Church had was that something was wrong with me.

An invitation

If you are where I was, you do not owe anyone a conclusion tonight. This site is not going anywhere.

All I ask is the thing I was asked my whole life: keep asking, with a sincere heart and real intent. One topic at a time, checking every source yourself, letting the answer be whatever it is.

This page is part of a 76-topic library. Every claim links to its source, most of them the Church’s own. Read it on the full site or browse every topic.