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 That proposal was permanently withdrawn in October after legal action by the Catholic church.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.
That’s an assertion with no evidence. It’s not like we have other universes we can compare to.
No, that does not follow. You have it backwards again. We evolved to fit our environment, and now you turn around and say the environment was designed for us. You’ve drawn a target around where the arrow already landed and you’re pretending you hit a bulls-eye.
There is no such thing as philosophical evidence. There is measurable evidence, and there is logic we can apply to reach conclusions. There is zero scientific evidence supporting the existence of any god.
What’s your favorite piece of philosophical “evid”? I will explain the fallacy.
Why assume any one being is responsible for it? Why assume that being has a mind?
Nope, you failed to read the article. Read the whole thing, not just the part you want to cherry-pick.
Also, you’re just plain wrong. Different fingers, even on different individuals, can match: https://arxiv.org/html/2412.13135v1
So your “evidence” for god, which would not have actually been evidence of a creator even if all our fingerprints were unique, is just false.
Please take time to challenge your assumptions. Your faith has taken you dangerously far from the world we actually live in.
We have ZERO evidence suggesting the existence of:
So why are you pretending otherwise?
It relies on the Big Bang to exist. 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.
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
I suppose? The universe is everything, all of existence, from what I understand. Your model leaves out light, massless photons.
Big if! We have no reason to assume it was.
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.
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.
The universe is not like that. It has a beginning so it CANNOT be eternal nor exist of itself
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.
Welp, i created my minecraft world but i am not very loving of villagers
false equivalence fallacy
The big bang itself has a beginning right? something cant be created from nothing.
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.
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?
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?
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.
We don’t in fact know if the big bang is the beginning or if it’s correct the theory at all, for what we know there could’ve been another universe before the big bamg and something happened to it
but the universe has a beginning and end, right?
the universe is definitely not eternal as it has an end.
Spatially, or temporally? How do you know?
It’s a question science has not yet answered:
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/