How have courts considered the cognitive component of the insanity defense in the context of the "deific command" defense?

Citing a Connecticut case, State v. Wilson (1997) 700 A.2d 633, appellant claims that he honestly but mistakenly believed that society morally approved his actions to save his family from eternal hell. The argument is based on the theory that he was legally insane if he harbored a delusional belief that society did not morally condemn his actions. That may be the law in Connecticut with respect to "deific commands" to kill (i.e., defendant's belief that a divine power authorized the killing), but that is not the law of California or the majority of other jurisdictions. "[T]he large majority of other jurisdictions that have considered the cognitive prong of the insanity defense has chosen a societal, rather than a personal, standard. [Citations.]" (Id. at p. 618.)