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

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 That proposal was permanently withdrawn in October after legal action by the Catholic church.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.

  • rootEnglish
    28·
    20 hours ago

    We have a LOT more theological evidence

    Peter is literally cephas, the rock of the church.

    He was literally told “feed my sheep”

    • SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today
      51·
      16 hours ago

      Theology is not science. Theology is “well, we start with the baseless claim that god exists, then we build more baseless claims on top.”

      It’s lying to protect lies.

      • rootEnglish
        15·
        16 hours ago

        baseless? no.

        To claim that God does not exist is a logical contradiction

        to be created of yourself, and not of a creator is to rely on nothing.

        We rely on a LOT of other things. Actually, everything relies on other things, except God.

        • SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today
          1·
          15 hours ago

          baseless? no.

          Yes. There is no evidence of god, no observable base, yet you make an assumption and treat it as a fact.

          To claim that God does not exist is a logical contradiction

          No, it is not. All of the data my brain has parsed over my entire lifetime suggests to my current self that there is no god. Humans made it up.

          to be created of yourself, and not of a creator is to rely on nothing.

          I was birthed by humans. Who created god? Himself? Or was he always there? Either way, we can make the same guesses about the universe itself, no god necessary.

          We rely on a LOT of other things. Actually, everything relies on other things, except God.

          And god’s dad. And god’s dad’s dad. Etc.

          • rootEnglish
            12·
            15 hours ago

            God exists of himself. That is why he relies on nothing. All evidence points to an omnipotent creator

            Why were we made unique in the eyes, tongue and hands?

            (retinas, fingerprints and tongueprints)

            • SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today
              1·
              13 hours ago

              God exists of himself. That is why he relies on nothing.

              Maybe the universe is like that with no god required. We don’t know.

              All evidence points to an omnipotent creator

              No. There is no evidence we were created, no evidence that omnipotence exists, and logically speaking the christian god is an impossibility.

              There is no evidence for god.

              Why were we made unique in the eyes, tongue and hands?(retinas, fingerprints and tongueprints)

              We evolved via messy biological processes.

              https://www.scienceabc.com/innovation/why-are-fingerprints-unique-and-why-do-we-have-them

              Fingerprints form between roughly weeks 10 and 24 of fetal development, as the rapidly growing skin on the fingertips buckles into ridges under the volar pads. Each fingerprint is shaped by a mix of genetics and the unique in-utero environment (pressure on the womb, amniotic fluid currents, finger movement, blood flow), which is why even identical twins (who share DNA) have different fingerprints. Their use in identifying victims, suspects, and verifying records relies on this individual variation rather than any single, mathematically proven uniqueness rule.

              I can’t stress this enough: It’s not magic. Magic isn’t real.

              • rootEnglish
                12·
                13 hours ago

                The universe relies on a lot of specific conditions. Thus it must have a creator.

                There is a lot of philosophical evidence as well as scientific evidence.

                Who is responsible for the natural phenoma? God

                Even identical twins who share DNA have different fingerprints. We are all unique. This is all more proof of a creator and a soul

                • SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today
                  2·
                  13 hours ago

                  The universe relies on a lot of specific conditions.

                  That’s an assertion with no evidence. It’s not like we have other universes we can compare to.

                  Thus it must have a creator.

                  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 a lot of philosophical evidence as well as scientific evidence.

                  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.

                  Who is responsible for the natural phenoma?

                  Why assume any one being is responsible for it? Why assume that being has a mind?

                  Even identical twins who share DNA have different fingerprints. We are all unique. This is all more proof of a creator and a soul

                  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

                  Galton’s argument, then, is that as the number of people on planet Earth was around 1.6 billion when he was writing his argument, the chance that an individual’s fingerprint would be exactly like that of the same finger of any other member of the human race was 1 to 4. To be accepted today, Galton’s modeling would require more detail and should rely less on an individual’s subjective guesses, but with minor changes, it is correct and conservative.

                  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:

                  • god
                  • magic
                  • christ
                  • souls
                  • heaven
                  • hell
                  • angels
                  • satan

                  So why are you pretending otherwise?

                  • rootEnglish
                    12·
                    13 hours ago

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