Ep 471 – Week of Tannehill – The Abrahamic Covenant

Posted April 16th, 2018

What is the Abrahamic covenant and why is it so important to Mormons like Mike Tannehill?  For listeners who do not know Mike Tannehill, get ready.  He’s making a return to the podcast soon.  So think of “The Week of Tannehill” as a year supply of sorts, preparing for the end times, this time with extra weevils.




  • John

    Damn I love Mike Tannehill. His point of view, while infuriating, is important to hear because it represents orthodox mormonism which is where my family and many friends remain. Listening to him and the other podcasters try to understand the Abrahamic Covenant is like watching a bunch of monkeys try to hump a football.

    Thanks for bringing back Tannehill. I think I might overdose on a full week of episodes but I’m glad he’s around.

  • Larry

    I’m listening to Mike Tannehil for the first time, and it is great. Hilarious.

    The part where he is explaining how keeping your covenants by living righteously seals your eternal marriage is counter to what Joseph Smith (and others) taught. The sealing is the second anointing.

  • oldscoop

    I’ve listened to the whole Week of MT and appreciate you putting these together and posting. I enjoy Mike’s sincerity and commitment. He comes across as very good natured. If I was as nice as him when talking with people who disagree with me then… well… you know… While listening to Mike across a couple episodes I realized “Yes! This is the speculative duct tape and baling wire! Mike does not realize (as I did not about my own “testimony”) that he as simply patched together sources that support his beliefs and connected them and his own speculation with the equivalent of duct tape and baling wire so they kind of hold together.
    Problem is that Mike’s insistence on literality means that if one piece of that patchwork gets dropped the whole thing must crumble. If – as John Hamer contended in 7 Heresies episode – Abraham was not a real person then almost everything important to Mike’s foundation is false and worthless.
    (PS I’d really like to get John Hamer’s references supporting his point that several of the characters that Mike needs to be literal are actually demonstrably false. That would be interesting and useful for me. For example, if there is no Adam, a massive amount of what’s come from JS will be readily shown as bogus.