State supreme court rules in case of two bishops who were silent about three children abused by Mormon parents

Clergy members in Arizona who learn of child abuse in the context of religious confession are not required to report it, the state’s supreme court has said in a ruling that protects what church leaders call the “seal of the confessional”.

The panel’s ruling ends a long-running case in which three children who were sexually abused by their parents sued the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), also known as the Mormon church, and two bishops who became aware of the crimes but remained silent.

The case has parallels in a short-lived 2025 law in Washington state that would have compelled clergy members there to report sexual abuse. That proposal was permanently withdrawn in October after legal action by the Catholic church.

In a statement, the LDS welcomed the unanimous ruling by the state supreme court on Thursday that exempts clergy members as “mandated reporters” if they learned of the abuse of minors in the confession booth or through other “confidential” methods.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -1 points 1 week ago (1 child)

It relies on the Big Bang to exist. If it has a beginning, it must have a cause.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    If it has a beginning, it must have a cause.

    Why do you assume the big bang was the beginning of existence?

    The honest answer is "we don't know what led to our existence, but we learn more the more we look." The dishonest answer is "must've been a wizard."

    Do you believe that god has no beginning? Maybe the universe is like that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    The big bang itself has a beginning right? something cant be created from nothing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

    God itself has a beginning, right? Something cannot be created from nothing.

    Here, again, is the most honest truth: we don't know.

    But inventing wizards does not solve any of these questions, it just kicks the can down the road, from the universe to an anthropomorphic yet vaguely defined "supreme" being whose supposed omnipotence fails to prevent needless suffering. You've not answered any questions, and you've added many more by making unfalsifiable claims.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (1 child)
    1. No, God has to be outside of time to create time for time cannot create time.
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

    time cannot create time.

    How do you know that?

    And how do you know time can't be "created" by something that isn't god?

    I'd also like to point out that in order to perform the act of creation, god must already be experiencing time. So where did his time come from?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    I cannot invent something that already exists, right? I cant take a lightbulb and say I invented lightbulbs.

    God relies completely on hinself, and why must he be experiencing time?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    why must he be experiencing time?

    Because he performed the act of creating us. There is no action if there is no time.

    Any argument you apply to god can be applied to the universe itself. You have arguments from ignorance and nothing else, which is not sufficient to convince anyone reasonable of god's existence.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    the universe is definitely not eternal as it has an end.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    Spatially, or temporally? How do you know?

    It's a question science has not yet answered:

    The current consensus is that the total universe is likely flat, which implies it is either truly infinite or, at the very least, far larger than the 93 billion light-year expanse we can observe. The flat geometry suggests there is no physical limit or boundary to the cosmos beyond our current detection capabilities

    https://scienceinsights.org/is-the-universe-finite-or-infinite/

    Go tell NASA what you have discovered, it could revolutionize our understanding of the universe. https://nasaspacenews.com/2025/10/is-the-universe-infinite-new-evidence-challenges-our-cosmic-understanding/

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    The universe, as agreed upon is the combination of time, space and matter

    so if it was created, the creator needs to be outside of time, space and matter and be powerful enough to create the universe and be loving enough to create it even though he didnt need it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

    The universe, as agreed upon is the combination of time, space and matter

    I suppose? The universe is everything, all of existence, from what I understand. Your model leaves out light, massless photons.

    so if it was created

    Big if! We have no reason to assume it was.

    the creator needs to be outside of time, space and matter and be powerful enough to create the universe and be loving enough to create it even though he didnt need it

    And so did his creator. Right? Or is this special pleading again?

    Also, a god who would give kids cancer is not doing it out of love. I resent my parents for giving birth to me. This life is more suffering than joy, and that is largely thanks to your death cult and others.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    If God is outside of time, he has no beginning nor end, so he does not need a creator as he exists of himself

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

    If God is outside of time, he has no beginning nor end, so he does not need a creator as he exists of himself

    Maybe the universe is like that. We don't know.

    You're pretending that science justifies the christian god specifically, which is ridiculous. If (big if) there is some kind of supertemporal framework for our universe, we probably shouldn't call it "god" or anthropomorphize it. That would just confuse people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    The universe is not like that. It has a beginning so it CANNOT be eternal nor exist of itself

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (2 children)

    You don't know that. Stop treating assumptions like facts. It's okay to say "I don't know." It's not okay to make shit up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    why are you trying to argue the universe is eternal?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

    Fuck off, that's not what I said.

    The honest answer is we don't know. We can't know.

    So stop pretending to know it is god. There is no reason to assume that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Hey so, maybe we cant comprehend an omniponent God because we are not omnipotent?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    Hey so, maybe it doesn't exist.

    Given all available information, that is much more likely.

    You keep using "we can't understand" to reinforce your assumptions. But "we can't understand" means the one thing that you picked is almost certainly not true, because there are endless other possibilities and we have no way to test any of them.

    Omnipotence would mean no suffering, if he loves us. You lack imagination if you can't see that. There is no inherent need for our universe to be the way it is.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (1 child)