No more humoring violence-infatuated Mormons

Back in October 2008, I posted a public response to an email that a Mormon friend of mine received and then forwarded on to me for comment: Enough with the Emails from Mormon McVeigh Wannabes.

An excerpt from my message to the Mormon author of that email rant:

I’m very concerned, Brian, by the lack of daylight between what you’ve written above and the words Timothy McVeigh used to describe the “why” behind his hatred of our country.

And my plea to the LDS leadership:

Many members have become increasingly disturbed by the tone and rhetoric that’s being adopted in Mormon email forwards like the one above, but so many members feel so browbeaten at this point that few bother to mount a challenge.

I believe it has become your responsibility to address the problem of paranoid and bellicose email forwards like Brian’s that are now in such heavy circulation among your members.

Admittedly, I’m under no illusion that anyone of importance at LDS HQ actually bothered to notice my 2008 request, but here’s a fresh 2011 request that I sincerely hope might have some chance of being taken seriously by the muckety-mucks of both the Mormon and ex-Mormon blogospheres: Please stop providing a platform for this pest.

Mike Tannehill FB 1

Mike Tannehill FB 2

I suppose the above (redacted) screen grabs speak for themselves, but just in case:

Memo to Mormon Expression: enough with the wink and nod routine, let this guy find his own platform for spreading his poison and be done.

In other news: Giffords’ husband releases first statement since shooting

Acknowledgments (for prompting my choice of title):

Russell Arben Fox, Great Work, You Over-Hyped Violence-Infatuated Morons

Chino Blanco

--- We are men of action, lies do not become us. ---

You may also like...

73 Responses

  1. Chino Blanco says:

    You know it is, Mike. What point are you trying to make by asking?

    Your opinion is not only unpopular, it’s unAmerican. It’s no longer a political debate once you start advocating the murder of elected representatives or government employees. I’m curious: who told you that you have the right to use violence to nullify my vote?

  2. Glenn Ostlund says:

    Chino, he already tipped his hat on that one. The still small voice told him. Sheesh, aren’t you paying attention? Worthiness trumps unworthiness everytime. The spirit whispers this to me and tells me forget all that love thy neighbor crap. Scary.

  3. profxm says:


    First, your views are extreme. You can deny that, but you fall into the extreme category even for a Muslim in a predominantly Muslim country, as only a minority of Muslims believe violence is justifiable in the defense of religion (per Sam Harris).

    Second, you’re absolutely wrong about Waco. The facts aren’t on your side. Koresh was given plenty of time to call an end to the siege, to let his followers go, and to let the children go. It’s not like the ATF and FBI marched in on day one and started shooting. And, in the end, it was Koresh and his higher ups who killed most of their followers, not the fire. Most of those who died “in the fire” were actually shot, execution style, and that was the cause of death, not the fire. Additionally, there is evidence that Koresh and his followers started the fires (three simultaneously, not just one). So, the basis of your claim that Oklahoma is justified is based on a completely erroneous understanding of Waco. (see:

    Even if the US government had outright killed the people at Waco, that would not justify the Oklahoma City bombing. In no way is that justifiable. However, using your logic, Mike, people from Arkansas have every right to blow up the Church Office Building to teach the LDS Church a lesson for Mountain Meadows. After all, the evidence on Mountain Meadows is much more damning to the Mormon Church than is the evidence for Waco against the Federal Government. Ergo, let’s go blow up the Church Office Building (and throw in a nearby daycare for good measure)! Does this help you see how sick and wrong your logic is?

    Finally, if you really think the temple ceremony provides justification for the shooting of Harry Reid, your condemning your religion, not just your extreme views. Granted, there are plenty of people with different views on what the temple ceremony means, and most would not argue that it means killing someone based on their political views. But if you really think that the LDS religion provides justification for killing people, then not only are you immoral, so, too, is your religion.

    Thinking about my own family, all of whom are LDS, I have one brother who owns an assault rifle and bought himself a bullet proof vest for Christmas. He’s conservative. But I guarantee you he would not advocate shooting Harry Reid for his views on homosexuality. He would say that Reid’s wrong, but he wouldn’t say that warrants him being shot. And this is my conservative brother. My other brothers, including two members of bishoprics, would find your views abhorrent and would probably argue for your excommunication.

    Despite how extreme your views really are (and, in fact, they are extreme for Mormons), I don’t have a problem with you being on ME. It’s probably the best place for your views to be shared, since they can so readily be shown to be extreme (thanks Glenn and John).

  4. kuri says:

    “I am not a nut as some people here seem to think.”

    Um, yes, you are.

  5. someguy says:

    Mike is clearly one who holds radical beliefs. My father is a gun….aficionado. Growing up myself surrounded by simmering violent language of far right revolution and knowing supposed members of the Michigan militia has left me sickened by the attitudes expressed and the implied means towards a frightening end.

    Maybe its because I have been listening to Year Zero lately (tom might be able to relate) but I have found myself more and more scared of the rights utopia of gay ghettos and atheist reeducation camps that begin with scenarios from the Turner Diaries. Racism, bigotry and a masturbatory hope that one day they get to live out Red Dawn drives these fools to destruction. Since my initial FB post this whole thing has frustrated and saddened me.

  6. Alan says:

    I have found myself more and more scared of the rights utopia of gay ghettos and atheist reeducation camps that begin with scenarios from the Turner Diaries

    What/who are you talking about?

    And speaking of Red Dawn, the fact that a remake is in the works that uses a Chinese invasion instead of a Soviet one is just awful. The US/China issue is about the income gap in every country, not China versus the US. Hopefully they’ll use the movie to speak to nationalism and racism and opposed to just inflaming people’s passions/fears.

  7. Mike Tannehill says:

    @Chino – I didn’t know it was, thats why I was asking. I have never seen that photo before.
    I’m not advocating murder, I am only saying that I would have prefered it was him than that poor woman.

    @Glenn – I claim no revelation in regards to my views regarding Reid and Waco. They are my personal opinions.

    @Profxm – I have never said “violence is justifiable in defence of religion”. I do think that we have a right to defend ourselves.

    I also do not claim that the temple ceremony provides any justification for violence. I was making the point that Reid is a scumbag for violating his oaths in a way that leads not only himself but millions of others down to hell, that is all.

    @Kuri – nice mustache

    @someguy – What is this year zero stuff you are refering to? It sounds horrible.

    @ Alan – I agree. Just when China seems to be overcoming its communist past we are going to release a film that makes them our enemy?

  8. Chino Blanco says:

    Mike, it’s also a photo of Dallin H. Oaks pointing at Harry Reid and telling Obama, “You see that summabitch Reid over there? He’s just as Mormon as me and Monson here. So, don’t you worry about Harry, our own polling in Nevada confirms that everybody else – even Nate Silver himself – is seriously underestimating Latino turnout.”

  9. Chino Blanco says:

    By the way, Mike, since you previously stated your intention to swear off commenting on Facebook, I’m gonna reply here to the last comment you left for me over there:

    And you enjoy your freedom Jason that others died to provide you with.

    See, thing is, Mike, I think you’re the one exploiting the “freedom” that the Internet provides you to play the showboat. I put “freedom” in quotes because that word should mean more than simply relishing the opportunity to spout off nonsense with no attached social costs. Instead of making an ass of yourself by commenting on our avatars (“nice mustache”? Really? What the fuck?), or simply denying that you said what you’re on record as saying, how about making a real effort to respond?

    Otherwise, one of the reasons I get tired of this crap real quick is that I live with it. Reading ProfXM’s comment above (and chanson has mentioned her extended family as well), I suspect that others can relate. At my family reunion this past summer, one of the uncles was pulling up stakes and moving from Arizona to Idaho, for reasons that are flat-out insane (or actually quite mundane, but he’s managed to wrap his decisions in the kind of delusional thinking that masks his feelings of shame about the downturn in his personal finances with his new calling to fulfill some world-historical mission).

    That particular uncle is the extreme, but there are six more whose views (and gun arsenals) are not too far off. And I’ve got nothing against guns. We’ve got our own arsenal back on the family farm. But after that reunion, even my dad was telling me, holy shit, fear is a terrible thing. And he should know. He’s got a brother who’s come untethered from reality because of it.

    Anyways, I’ve gotta head out the door, but it was my dad who managed to persuade me not to enlist with the Marines after high school. I had more testosterone than testimony (or good sense) even back then, but I’ll continue that thought later. For now, just know I have little respect for fake tough posers like yourself, Mike.

  10. Mike Tannehill says:

    @Chino – Who’s showboating? You started a thread about me and I responded honestly. Are under some delusion that I’m out to draw attention to myself? When John informed me this thread existed I nearly dropped the phone. I’ve got my wife mad at me, Glenn mad at me, and I’m sure John’s upset about negative feelings towards a panel member. No ones showboating here.

    I honestly think Kuri has a nice moustache. I myself an unable to grow one properly and I’m a bit jealous.

    You want an honest response to the issues? Why do you think conservatives get so hostile towards liberals? Could it be that over time entitlement programs enslave people and drain economies? Could it be that legalizing drugs would be devastating to society? Could it be that so called sexual revolutions, be they the free love variety or the homosexual ones, are known to be hugely damaging to societies?

    “No one man [or woman], however brilliant or well-informed, can come in one lifetime to such fullness of understanding as to safely judge and dismiss the customs or institutions of his society, for these are the wisdom of generations after centuries of experiment in the laboratory of history. A youth boiling with hormones will wonder why he should not give full freedom to his sexual desires; and if he is unchecked by custom, morals, or laws, he may ruin his life [or hers] before he matures sufficiently to understand that sex is a river of fire that must be banked and cooled by a hundred restraints if it is not to consume in chaos both the individual and the group. [Will and Ariel Durant, The Lessons of History (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1968), pp. 35-36]

    A liberal mind is the mind of a child, without scope or wisdom. It disregards the long term affects of decisions in favor of the here and now. An angry conservative voice is most likely to be an outraged Mother or Father. They see their childs future threatened by what can only be perceived as crazed idiots. That these individuals have the force of law behind them is all the more frightening.

    To a liberal a conservative is someone who wants to threaten their freedoms. They lack the understanding that restraints protect them and allow their freedoms to exist.
    They fail to understand that in order for a person to stand they need to use their own legs, that those who offer a hand up are more valuable than someone offering a hand out.

    Conservatives understand that while morality cannot be legislated, what can be legislated is an enviorment where morality can thrive. Those that seek to abuse their freedoms under the guise of entitlement are a threat to what makes our country strong in the first place: individual morality brought about through strong familes. The promiscuity and generational welfare promoted by liberals is a cancer to that system.

  11. chanson says:

    Actually, way back when Mike said he wasn’t going to stick around to defend his views to us here, my immediate reaction to that was, “Hmm, he’s right — he’s less nuts than I thought he was.” And yet the conversation has continued. Which puts me in the very awkward position (as moderator) of having to point out that we’re not generally supposed to be calling fellow commenters “nuts” even if their views are abhorrent…

  12. kuri says:

    Is it out of bounds to call someone who expresses approval of mass murder and terrorism a nut? Especially when he brought up the subject himself by saying he isn’t one?

  13. Chino Blanco says:

    Mike, by your own definition, you’re no conservative. One of the customs of our society is that we settle political quarrels at the ballot box. You can list as many real or imagined threats to our republic as you like, but it won’t change that. And your suggesting alternate targets for domestic terrorism won’t change it either. Neither will your defense of Timothy McVeigh’s utter lack of restraint.

  14. Glenn Ostlund says:

    I’m not mad, Mike. But I’m really dissapointed.

  15. Alan says:

    One of the customs of our society is that we settle political quarrels at the ballot box.

    To be fair, I think Mike was stating that a public response to Waco couldn’t be solved at the ballot box; it was out of the purview of democracy in the same way that the American people didn’t get to vote on, say, the Iraq War. He is right that the US government is hugely violent. But his perspective falls apart when he upholds violence himself (e.g, targeting Reid over Giffords) or defending terrorism. He might not be “immature enough” to think that war is not “necessary,” but he certainly seems immature in terms of being introspective about the warmongering in his own views.

    When 9/11 happened, there were any number of liberals who understood why it happened and saw it coming as a result of US policy. But understanding consequences and how violence begets violence is different than saying that acts of violence are “necessary.”

  16. chanson says:

    Kuri @62 — I don’t know. Perhaps expressing approval of mass-murder should be out-of-bounds. I feel like this whole thread is — ironically enough — handing Mike the platform and publicity for his views that the post seems to argue against… And I’m at a bit of a loss as to how to help channel the discussion in as sane a direction as possible. 😉

  17. Chino Blanco says:

    Just ignore the first ten seconds of this clip (the video displays fine after that).

    In this scene from the 1997 film Grosse Pointe Blank, Civilized Society is played by Minnie Driver, with John Cusack in the role of Sociopathic Killer:

    That’s the message that civilized society should be delivering to its sociopaths: “You don’t get to have me.”

    You don’t get to accuse others of over-reacting, or hang out and chit-chat, or get on your soapbox … no, what you get to do is go away until you figure out why you’re being rejected as a menace.

  18. Mike Tannehill says:

    @Chanson – You are right, I said I would drop this thread and I havent, I just thought it would be good to tie up a few loose ends.

    @ Alan – Well said.

    @Chino – Cusack and Driver have great chemistry in that movie. When do I get to see soft sociopaths like liberals go away? You see the policies that liberals put forth eat away slowly at what upholds civilized society. You want to redefine what a family is, you want to redefine what sex is, you want to redefine what we know to be harmful substances, and all of that together over time destroys everything that makes our civilized society what it is. You want to see real horror look at the millions of lives shattered by the sexual revolution and the drug culture of the sixties. Those ideas were not new, but you had a movement that accepted those ideas and fought to normalize them. I think at this point we can look back on the outcome of that and call it failed. So why are many of those same ideas being repackaged today and trying to be resold?

  19. profxm says:

    Mike, the more you write, the more delusional you sound. Are you not aware of the numerous studies that have found lower crime rates, lower poverty rates, lower abuse rates, and greater happiness in most of Western Europe where they are: more likely to cohabit, more open about sex, have greater social welfare, etc? Yes, Western Europe is a progressive’s wet-dream (you keep using the word “liberal” erroneously). Are you really going to try to tell me that “civilized” society is collapsing in Western Europe? How civilized is shooting a Congress person, in our gun-toting society? Or, better-yet, how “civilized” is it to say, “I’d rather you shot this person than that person.” Seriously, Mike, you sound like you are completely out of touch with reality.

    Sex doesn’t hurt people, telling people sex will hurt people hurts people. Uninformed sexually activity is much riskier than informed sexual activity, but, to quote Kinsey, the only form of sexual deviance is “abstinence.” Drugs can hurt people, but to varying degrees. The world isn’t black and white. In no way does allowing gay people to marry destroy society. That claim is preposterous. You have no evidence, none, zip, zero, zilch to support that. It is pure and utter bullshit!!!

    I’d love to see the “millions of lives shattered by the sexual revolution”. Frankly, I’d love to see one. Where are you getting these numbers and ideas? Seriously?

    The sexual revolution failed? Oh, right, because women can divorce and have orgasms now. That’s a failure because, well, now women demand to be treated like equals (though they still aren’t).

    In all honesty, Mike, it’s scares me to think that people like you exist. You are delusional. Try reading science for a change and turn off Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. The 50s are over. White men are losing power. I know that scares you, but deal with it. It’s our future. Stop grasping at a past that was really quite awful.

  20. kuri says:

    Of course, in the one OECD country that actually decriminalized drugs, that policy has been a resounding success. Drug use is down, HIV infections are down, treatment is up, drug deaths are down. But one must never let reality interfere with ideology.

  21. Alan says:

    Mike, pointing to the 1960s as when all this “evil” got its foothold is not very useful; it’s very simplistic. Just because the Pope does it, doesn’t mean you should. What it does is create a false utopia before the 1960s (which, really, we’re looking at segregation, tons of sexism, and the jailing of people for sodomy — none of which is a society I’d like to live in). Perhaps when you think of the 1950s, you think of the rise of suburbia, and the nice movie scenes of wives baking cookies, the post WWII baby-boom. I imagine it is when Mormon culture was most in tune with US culture. But you’re missing the whole other side of the picture. Women gained independence during WWII: their bodies stopped being thought about as property and their roles expanded beyond the home. In my mind, the sexual revolution of the 1960s is just an extension of this. And it’s not like Mormons weren’t affected. The sex of an LDS husband/wife is not required to be for reproduction (which was indeed the case before the 60s). Mormons redefined sex for themselves, too. Now, gay sex, well, I’m sorry to tell you, that’s been always happening, so there’s no “redefinition” going on. There’s just more awareness that not everyone is the same.

  22. Miss Capri says:

    Oh yeah, keep in mind the poster of this article is a Dailykos-er. And that lot are always seeking out the worst possible representations, misrepresentations in fact, of anything religion related so they can yell “Christians are terrorists and they are stupid ha ha ha ha!” Unfortunately, there are stupid people like the McVey and Koresh worshiping drone who has no right calling himself a Mormon or Christian or anything of the sort if he’s going to say even one thing in defense of the indefensible. Koresh and Mcvey were sadistic, selfish, vile pieces of crap and there is no excuse for what they did to hundreds of people. Whoever originates such hateful chain forwards, for all anyone knows, are probably hoaxters with a left-wing agenda themselves, and they’ve found out that equally skewed far-right wingnuts are so hopelessly addicted to sending stupid chain letters that they’ll believe anything that damns Obama, true or not, while praising the likes of McVey and Koresh…

  23. Chino Blanco says:

    “Dailykos-er”? The word you’re looking for is “kossack” but thanks for the chuckle. Now, pls excuse me, I need to get back to work on getting my latest anti-Obama email into circulation. Ha ha.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.