Why the LDS Church Is Suing 'Mormon Stories' Host John Dehlin 2%

5/5/2026, 6:57:51 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 1 faulty reasoning type, including Overconfidence Bias, with Overconfidence Bias as the most egregious example at 10.6% saturation with 17 hits. Analysis detected 17 faulty-reasoning hits from 161 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 10.6% and a BS Rank of 2% (21,566 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 98.50% of the article peer group.

Part of the allegations brought by the Church against Dehlin includes claims that his use of copyrighted photographs and other materials creates confusion that the Church endorses his podcast. 
According to the lawsuit, the church made a list of demands, including the addition of a disclaimer to the top of “Mormon Stories Podcast” explicitly stating that the show has no relationship with the LDS Church. 
Dehlin, for his part, is fighting back. 
He says that any reasonable person can clearly see that his podcast isn’t affiliated with the church. 
GUEST 
John Delin | founder, executive producer and host of “Mormon Stories Podcast” 
Matthew Bowman | Associate Professor of Religion and Howard W. 
Hunter Chair of Mormon Studies, Claremont Graduate University 
Patrick Mason | Professor of Religious Studies and History, Leonard J. 
Arrington Chair of Mormon History and Culture, Director - Religious Studies Program, Utah State University 
Airdate: May 6, 2026 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%KUER: 2.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 3.4%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 10.6%KUER: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias10.6%This article: 0.0%KUER: 7.4%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.2%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 4.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 2.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 6.3%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 2.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 4.7%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 4.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 3.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 2.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

161 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker11%attributed speech144writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Dehlin • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

John Dehlin

100%flagged-word coverage
17 attributed words100% of attributed speech0% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.