Why People Are Quitting The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 74%

6/30/2026, 3:00:14 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 10 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Primacy Effect, and Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 43.1% saturation with 75 hits. Analysis detected 395 faulty-reasoning hits from 174 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 66.2% and a BS Rank of 74% (5,693 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 74.00% of the article peer group.

Chief among those questions was this: Why are so many people  many of them, apparently, devout believers  exiting The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? 
Strong’s research suggests that the faith’s U.S.-based membership has shrunk 40% over the last quarter century. 
The reasons people leave are varied, but often have to do with the history of the Church, as well as with its social attitudes. 
That’s led, says Strong, to a profound feeling among many Mormons of being torn between love of faith and love of family. 
Join us for a conversation about how to repair this division and about his book. 
It’s called “Torn.” 
GUEST  
Jeff Strong | He’s a former LDS bishop and mission president who’s worked in the consumer products industry and has been a faculty member at Brigham Young University. 
His book is called “Torn: Why People We Love are Leaving the Church and What We Can Learn from Them.” 
Airdate: July 1, 2026 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 13.8%KUER: 2.8%Confirmation Bias13.8%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 3.4%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 13.8%KUER: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic13.8%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 43.1%KUER: 7.4%Framing Effect43.1%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: 19.5%KUER: 6.3%Negativity Bias19.5%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: 16.1%KUER: 2.3%Halo Effect16.1%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: 32.2%KUER: 0.3%Primacy Effect32.2%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: 37.9%KUER: 4.7%Appeal to Authority37.9%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: 12.6%KUER: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion12.6%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: 16.1%KUER: 0.8%Unattributed Quote16.1%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: 21.8%KUER: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…21.8%

174 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker49%attributed speech88writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageJeff Strong • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageJeff Strong • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageJeff Strong • 28 words • 0.0% coverageJeff Strong • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jeff Strong

100%flagged-word coverage
86 attributed words100% of attributed speech93% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Unattributed Quote-31.8 ptsWriter: 31.8%Jeff Strong: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +2.8 ptsWriter: 20.5%Jeff Strong: 23.3%23.3%

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.