Des News Article Re: "Under the Banner of Heaven" Mini Series

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Personal revelation is just a different way of expressing the same experience we all have of listening to and honoring our inner voice/s.  

No it is not.  When someone is convinces it is God telling them to do something, even something  horrific, that is very different then an  "inner voice."

[gopher]

Who would be interested in watching a series about well behaved members of the church trying their best to live the current standards of the church?  Probably not me.  It's more interesting to see stories of those who go off the rails.  It's flattering that members are held in high enough regards that this story is so shocking to many.  How's that for a positive spin?

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

at least for her as someone looking for signs and the spirit to direct her, she was able to meld the schizophrenia into her religious belief. It's some scary stuff.

But the question (for me at least) is not if it happens, which I have no doubt it does given the nature of schizophrenia, but if religion increases the rate of delusion (acceptance of the voices as real) as well as if this is typically harmful.  Many studies I have read indicate a helpful aspect with higher religiosity, even though Christians tend to find voices typically more troubling than some other faiths do iirc.

[JLHPROF]

Just now, Calm said:

CFR please.  I am reading it differently.  Not being surprised by the occurrence based on seeing similar incidents elsewhere is not the same as thinking it justified.

For example:

“Inflammatory” and “harsh are criticisms, are they not?

Basic reading of the article as a whole.
As they go through the case they take every pain to justify or explain away the act without actually doing so:

• "Lewis was not attacked simply for desiring a marriage. Samuel Pitchforth noted that the attack occurred at night as Lewis was being transported to the penitentiary for an unspecified crime."
• "Snow's life and experience had given him a "violent and vengeful world view," which helps in understanding his motivation to attack and maim Lewis."
• "in the 19th century there was a common tendency for "frontier justice" to be carried out extra-legally"
• "Castrated males were guilty of sexual assault or incest, not for competing for a woman's affections."
• "These events occurred during the Mormon Reformation, when inflammatory rhetoric called for harsh punishment for sin and crime. For Brigham the time for the actual implementation of such punishment had not yet actually arrived, and was primarily hyperbole designed to stir a sinful population to improvement. Some listeners like Snow took things literally."
• "Brigham and other Church leaders did not approve the action taken by the local members. Joseph Young (Brigham's brother) of the Presidents of the Seventy later learned about the incident and was incensed and “entirely disapproved” of it.
  • Brigham again emphasized his feeling that the time for such severe punishment was still in the future by saying that church leaders could not “cleanse the platter because people will not bear it.” He expressed his fear that if such penalties were carried out, “the wicked [would] go to the states & call for troops.” But then, making obvious reference to Warren, he said, “I will tell you that when a man is trying to do right & do[es] some thing that is not exactly in order I feel to sustain him,” and perhaps looking at Joseph, he authoritatively added “& and we all should.” (Scott G. Kenney, ed. Wilford Woodruff's Journal)

I just read the article as yes this happened, there were some extenuating factors.  Perhaps not fully justifying it, but their efforts to provide full context certainly seem to downplay the severity of the act.
They also indicate (as noted in bold) that this was not an isolated event.
And on the final point they state that Brigham did not approve but followed it up with a quote of Brigham letting it slide.

 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

But the question (for me at least) is not if it happens, which I have no doubt it does given the nature of schizophrenia, but if religion increases the rate of delusion (acceptance of the voices as real) as well as if this is typically harmful.  Many studies I have read indicate a helpful aspect with higher religiosity, even though Christians tend to find voices typically more troubling than some other faiths do iirc.

My uneducated opinion on it is that someone with mental illness, whether schizophrenia or something else, will suffer from that illness whether or not they are affiliated with a specific religion, political party, or any affinity group. Elements of their beliefs will likely play a role in how the illness manifests but it in no way causes the illness.

However, I do believe that there are those who are susceptible to radicalization, independent of mental illness. If someone already believes XYZ are they more likely to believe variations like xyz or xxyz? I think that is likely. For example if someone is likely to believe some kind of fantastic conspiracy theory, they are probably likely to believe other conspiracy theories.

Edited April 26, 2022 by HappyJackWagon

[Calm]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Do we have other possible examples of a violent mormon religion in the past besides Porter Rockwell?

There is evidence that the Utah territory was less violent than the areas surrounding it.  My guess is this is in part due to the built-in community organization that would have existed in communities with a majority of Saints in them as well as the calling of members to become settlers in new communities, which built them up to a population that would have access to non vigilante justice quicker.

Quote

Although we lack a thorough comparative study of murders in Utah and other western areas, the available statistical information contradicts Bagley's [and the other critics'] impression of Utah society. The best evidence we have at this time is that Bagley is wrong when he insists that "what made Utah's violence unique in the West was that it occurred in a settled, well-organized community whose leaders publicly sanctioned doctrines of vengeance and ritual murder." In fact, barring further evidence to the contrary, the best evidence we have at this point is that Utah was one of the least violent jurisdictions in the western United States.[3]

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Utah/Crime_and_violence/Culture
 

Quote

“This portrayal goes counter to the accounts of contemporary observers and the understanding of historians who have investigated the matter of crime in nineteenth-century Utah. In fact, if anything distinguished Deseret from elsewhere in the West, it was its reputation for well-established and fair courts (administered by LDS bishops) and a remarkably low level of violence—vigilante, criminal, or otherwise”.[4]

Legal historian D. Michael Stewart underscored this when he remarked, "extralegal violence was rare compared to that found in other frontier communities."[5]

Non-member Franklin Buck described the difference between southern Utah and his own town of Pioche, Nevada in 1871:

“In Pioche [Nevada] we have two courts, any number of sheriffs and police officers and a jail to force people to do what is right. There is a fight every day and a man killed about every week. About half the town is whisky shops and houses of ill fame. In these Mormon towns there are no courts, no prisons, no saloons, no bad women; but there is a large brick Church and they keep the Sabbath—a fine schoolhouse and all the children go to school. All difficulties between each other are settled by the Elders and the Bishop. Instead of every man trying to hang his neighbor, they all pull together. There is only one store on the co-operative plan and all own shares and it is really wonderful to see what fine towns and the wealth they have in this barren country. It shows what industry and economy will do when all work together....The Devil [i.e., the Mormons] is not as black as he is painted.”[6]

 

Edited April 26, 2022 by Calm

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

And there are extreme teaching in Mormonism that lends to things like the Lafferty's. Snuffer, Julie Rowe, Daybells, preppers, Conspiracy theorists, anti vaxxers, and the list could go on.

What specific "extreme teachings" leads to extreme "preppers"?  Having a food supply, being out of debt, and being temporally self-sufficient doesn't sound "extreme" to me.  Sounds quite reasonable and even wise.  What "extreme" teachings led to the Daybells belief in zombies and all of their off-the-wall crazy beliefs?  Which "extreme" teachings specifically led to "anti vaxxers" - help me out with that one please (I think you are confusing political parties with church teachings)?   If the church was the source of these extreme views, you would think they would be friendly to these extreme characters and beliefs...but, nope.  They are excommunicated and warned against their beliefs and teachings. 

When you take the teachings of Mormonism from a holistic perspective, it is overwhelmingly GOOD, moderate, kind, friendly, and service oriented. 

[pogi]

43 minutes ago, gopher said:

Who would be interested in watching a series about well behaved members of the church trying their best to live the current standards of the church?  Probably not me.  It's more interesting to see stories of those who go off the rails.  It's flattering that members are held in high enough regards that this story is so shocking to many.  How's that for a positive spin?

That is a really good point.  Everyone in America knows the names of the handful of crazy and violent Mormons.  For a church that is nearly 200 years old, that is a really short list and mental illness probably played a role in most of them. 

It is really astounding to me that our faiths teachings are being targeted for being a source of violence in the world, and that encouraging personal communion with the source of all that is good, and listening to our inner voice is being conflated with schizophrenic violence. 

[HappyJackWagon]

15 minutes ago, pogi said:

What specific "extreme teachings" leads to extreme "preppers"?  Having a food supply, being out of debt, and being temporally self-sufficient doesn't sound "extreme" to me.  Sounds quite reasonable and even wise.  What "extreme" teachings led to the Daybells belief in zombies and all of their off-the-wall crazy beliefs?  Which "extreme" teachings specifically led to "anti vaxxers" - help me out with that one please (I think you are confusing political parties with church teachings)?   If the church was the source of these extreme views, you would think they would be friendly to these extreme characters and beliefs...but, nope.  They are excommunicated and warned against their beliefs and teachings. 

When you take the teachings of Mormonism from a holistic perspective, it is overwhelmingly GOOD, moderate, kind, friendly, and service oriented. 

I think people confuse these things all the time and in defense of the error, it is often hard to delineate the source of one core belief from another. But it does seem like over the past 5 years or so many religious individuals have merged with right wingism. It's not a new phenomena but it does seem more acute.

[HappyJackWagon]

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

That is a really good point.  Everyone in America knows the names of the handful of crazy and violent Mormons.  For a church that is nearly 200 years old, that is a really short list and mental illness probably played a role in most of them. 

It is really astounding to me that our faiths teachings are being targeted for being a source of violence in the world, and that encouraging personal communion with the source of all that is good, and listening to our inner voice is being conflated with schizophrenic violence. 

But in localized events like the Lafferty murders it makes sense, right? There will always be some crazies who bastardize teachings or glom on to the hardest core of past teachings like blood atonement etc. It's not like there isn't any history of violence in Mormonism: Danites, Porter Rockwell, Missouri War, Mountain Meadows, Laffertys, the FLDS breakoffs, Hoffman etc.

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I am endlessly amused at every Phish show I have been to. 

I roll with the craziness most of the time, but when your female friend is urinated on by a dirty hippy standing behind her (true story)... that is hard to roll with.  Not even the phatty vegan burrito sold out of a bus made up for it!   

Oh man, sounds like we need to trade some road stories. I got on the bus with the Dead summer of '93 heading into my junior year of high school. Seen a whole bunch of everything. I've never had a wook pee on me and mine, though. No 1 for $3, 2 for $5 burrito can make up for that! I caught Dead and Company this past halloween weekend at the Hollywood Bowl. We've come a long way from burritos and grilled cheese. Vendors were slinging sushi and all sorts of fancy stuff. I don't think I'd trust lot sushi, though. But hey, sometimes you just gotta poke around

Ok, back to the thread!

[MiserereNobis]

13 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Oh man, sounds like we need to trade some road stories. I got on the bus with the Dead summer of '93 heading into my junior year of high school. Seen a whole bunch of everything. I've never had a wook pee on me and mine, though. No 1 for $3, 2 for $5 burrito can make up for that! I caught Dead and Company this past halloween weekend at the Hollywood Bowl. We've come a long way from burritos and grilled cheese. Vendors were slinging sushi and all sorts of fancy stuff. I don't think I'd trust lot sushi, though. But hey, sometimes you just gotta poke around

Ok, back to the thread!

@pogi I had a feeling of deja vu that we had discussed music before, and lo and behold I found in epic thread in social hall from a few years back. Sorry for forgetting that we're on the same musical boat!

[pogi]

48 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But in localized events like the Lafferty murders it makes sense, right? There will always be some crazies who bastardize teachings or glom on to the hardest core of past teachings like blood atonement etc.

That is the point I am trying to make.  These crazies are bastardizing teachings and they do not reflect the core beliefs and teachings of Mormonism.  Like I said previously, I think these outliers say more about the individuals than our church. 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

John Doyle Lee and whomever else from the Mormon church who was involved in MMM

And are we limiting the "violent things" to violence against white people or do we want to include what the Mormons did to the indigenous population of the Great Basin?

  

To clarify, I was responding to Analytics post where he said that modern mormonism isn't violent "but I don't know if that is true of the religion of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young."

So, I'm asking for examples that show that the religion of JS and BY was violent.  Did the violence that happened to the population of the Great Basin happen because it was dictated by the religious beliefs of BY?  If yes, then it's applicable.  If no (such as if it was a popular part of mainstream Christianity of the time and not specific to mormonism in that era), then it's probably not applicable.

I don't know that MMM counts since it wasn't sanctioned by BY and those who participated were excommunicated for it (so it's hard to argue that that act was specifically due to the religious teachings of the church at that time) and it seemed to have been done out of fear of persecution rather than any religious theology or doctrine.  But maybe I'm wrong about that.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Yes. The #1 bestseller Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith by Jon Krakauer explains it in some detail.

If you don't have time to read that book, there is a Wikipedia article called Mormonism and violence that is worth reading.

For me, the most poignant detail is the "Oath of Vengeance" that was added to the endowment ceremony in 1845 and remained in the ceremony until the 1920's or possibly early 1930's. Quoting from Wikipedia, the ceremony included the oath:

"You and each of you do covenant and promise that you will pray and never cease to pray to Almighty God to avenge the blood of the prophets upon this nation, and that you will teach the same to your children and to your children's children unto the third and fourth generation."

Praying for vengeance upon your enemies is different than praying that God will forgive your enemies.

To me, that sacred oath helps explain why Brigham Young said the marker at the Mountain Meadows Massacre site should be changed from saying "Vengeance is mine, sayth the Lord" to "Vengeance is mine, and I have taken a little."

I've read the book, though it's probably been 15 years or so since so I don't remember that much about it specifically.  I've read most of his books and this one was on parr with the others IIRC.  He's a good writer (that's why I usually read his stuff) but he editorializes and you have to weed out his biases for them to be useful as histories (even then they aren't that great on that end, but still very entertaining).

But it is odd, if the oath that you have pasted here was meant to be taken literally, that we only very few instances of violence done in the name of mormonism and because of its theology and doctrine.

We have a lot of explanations of beliefs that could be interpreted in violent ways, and those are being used to make conclusions that the religion is/was supportive of violence, but very very few examples of active members being violent in the name of their beliefs.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Basic reading of the article as a whole.
As they go through the case they take every pain to justify or explain away the act without actually doing so:

• "Lewis was not attacked simply for desiring a marriage. Samuel Pitchforth noted that the attack occurred at night as Lewis was being transported to the penitentiary for an unspecified crime."
• "Snow's life and experience had given him a "violent and vengeful world view," which helps in understanding his motivation to attack and maim Lewis."
• "in the 19th century there was a common tendency for "frontier justice" to be carried out extra-legally"
• "Castrated males were guilty of sexual assault or incest, not for competing for a woman's affections."
• "These events occurred during the Mormon Reformation, when inflammatory rhetoric called for harsh punishment for sin and crime. For Brigham the time for the actual implementation of such punishment had not yet actually arrived, and was primarily hyperbole designed to stir a sinful population to improvement. Some listeners like Snow took things literally."
• "Brigham and other Church leaders did not approve the action taken by the local members. Joseph Young (Brigham's brother) of the Presidents of the Seventy later learned about the incident and was incensed and “entirely disapproved” of it.
  • Brigham again emphasized his feeling that the time for such severe punishment was still in the future by saying that church leaders could not “cleanse the platter because people will not bear it.” He expressed his fear that if such penalties were carried out, “the wicked [would] go to the states & call for troops.” But then, making obvious reference to Warren, he said, “I will tell you that when a man is trying to do right & do[es] some thing that is not exactly in order I feel to sustain him,” and perhaps looking at Joseph, he authoritatively added “& and we all should.” (Scott G. Kenney, ed. Wilford Woodruff's Journal)

I just read the article as yes this happened, there were some extenuating factors.  Perhaps not fully justifying it, but their efforts to provide full context certainly seem to downplay the severity of the act.
They also indicate (as noted in bold) that this was not an isolated event.
And on the final point they state that Brigham did not approve but followed it up with a quote of Brigham letting it slide.

I think the article does present the extralegal actions as more in line with the acts they are in response to, as in castration not because a bishop wanted the girlfriend but was a response to assault.  I don’t see that as justifying the action, though I can see it as easy to interpret it as downplaying the severity since these are presented as acts of extralegal justice, not personal dislike or for personal advantage.  Justifying is stating/implying it was a good/right/fair response, not stating it was common or in response to a crime rather than personal.

Edited April 26, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's some scary stuff.

 Not dismissing your experience or the seriousness of it, just providing information on schizophrenia in general for more realistic reactions overall (given the media has inflated perception of violence in sufferers of schizophrenia imo)..  While there is a higher risk of violence (more likely to be self violence rather than assault) than the general population, it is lower risk in relation to some other mental disorders:

Quote

studies have shown that people with schizophrenia alone are less at risk of violent behaviour than those with depression, bipolar disorder, personality disorders or substance abuse problems.5…

When a person with schizophrenia becomes violent the victim is usually someone from their own family or someone else close to them such as a carer. Attacks against strangers are extremely rare. When the attacker is female they will almost invariably attack their own children.

Also the highest risk appears to be combining with substance abuse:

Quote

co-morbidity with substance abuse is a clear predictor to violent behaviour. When a person with schizophrenia abuses alcohol or street drugs their risk of engaging in dangerous behaviour increases fifteen fold.5

Also, those with schizophrenia are much more likely to be victims of violent crimes than perpetrators, though this may be in part because their behaviour may annoy or frighten others, who then choose to react inappropriately much of the time with violence.

https://livingwithschizophreniauk.org/information-sheets/schizophrenia-and-dangerous-behaviour/

[HappyJackWagon]

41 minutes ago, pogi said:

That is the point I am trying to make.  These crazies are bastardizing teachings and they do not reflect the core beliefs and teachings of Mormonism.  Like I said previously, I think these outliers say more about the individuals than our church. 

But I think that's why a series or movie like this is interesting to people. They know normal members in their real lives and I suspect that there will be mostly normal members portrayed in the show, so it's the variance between normal and what goes wrong with people like the Laffertys that is interesting. I find it very unlikely that people will watch this and think all Mormons are like the Laffertys. It's the contrast that is so jarring. Are there idiosyncratic elements of Mormonism people will be surprised by or disagree with or maybe even feel uncomfortable about. Sure. But that's true of any religion. I really don't understand the defensiveness about this show so many are exhibiting. But then again, maybe it will be a hit piece. I doubt it. 

But I'm definitely going to watch.

 

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But I think that's why a series or movie like this is interesting to people. They know normal members in their real lives and I suspect that there will be mostly normal members portrayed in the show, so it's the variance between normal and what goes wrong with people like the Laffertys that is interesting. I find it very unlikely that people will watch this and think all Mormons are like the Laffertys. It's the contrast that is so jarring. Are there idiosyncratic elements of Mormonism people will be surprised by or disagree with or maybe even feel uncomfortable about. Sure. But that's true of any religion. I really don't understand the defensiveness about this show so many are exhibiting. But then again, maybe it will be a hit piece. I doubt it. 

But I'm definitely going to watch.

 

Given Lindsey Hansen Park's involvement, I would say that the likelihood of a 'hit piece' occurring to be low.

[jkwilliams]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 

In relation to both of these comments. I once had a schizophrenic member of my ward (about a month before she received her diagnosis) publicly state that that I should be killed because it is better for one man to perish than for a ward to dwindle in unrighteousness. This is the lady who thought I had NSA level surveillance going in every room of her home, her car, and following her in public. Voices told her that I was surveilling her constantly and she believed it, declared it and even broke into my home and left bullets on the nightstand as a warning.

So, at least for her as someone looking for signs and the spirit to direct her, she was able to meld the schizophrenia into her religious belief. It's some scary stuff.

 

*This was also the experience where my Stake President called me in for a meeting to ask if I really was doing all of those things (as if it is even possible). His lack of discernment of the crazy ramblings of this lady did not instill me with confidence  

Reminds me of the Uruguayan brothers in my ward when I was elders quorum president. They had recently been released from prison for having hidden automatic weapons at Temple Square (they were convinced that President Benson was being held against his will in his apartment, and they had been called of God to rescue him).

They caused a lot of problems in our ward, ranging from calling ward leaders to repentance to accosting little girls in the hallways to punching a wheelchair-bound man during Sunday School.

As elders quorum president, I was assigned the task of personally delivering a letter from the stake president banning them from church property. It was the only time my life and that of my family were threatened by church members (not counting the many times it’s happened online).

I know they were—and still are—mentally ill, but “revelation” provided a context and rationale for their delusions. 

[pogi]

20 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But I think that's why a series or movie like this is interesting to people. They know normal members in their real lives and I suspect that there will be mostly normal members portrayed in the show, so it's the variance between normal and what goes wrong with people like the Laffertys that is interesting. I find it very unlikely that people will watch this and think all Mormons are like the Laffertys. It's the contrast that is so jarring. Are there idiosyncratic elements of Mormonism people will be surprised by or disagree with or maybe even feel uncomfortable about. Sure. But that's true of any religion. I really don't understand the defensiveness about this show so many are exhibiting. But then again, maybe it will be a hit piece. I doubt it. 

But I'm definitely going to watch.

I agree with you as to why people find this stuff entertaining in that it is the contrast that is jarring.  I fully anticipate being entertained by the series myself.  I don't anticipate feeling terribly defensive about the show.  I do feel defensive about some of the responses by posters on here who seem to be trying to implicate Mormonism in extremism and violence.  If that is what the series ends up trying to do, than it is flawed.  I think most people will see through it if that is the case. 

I fully anticipate a skewed portrayal of Mormonism in the series based on the comments from the producer and main character which make religion out to be a joke ("a musical comedy") or a "terror/horror" at its core.  If I had to guess, most of the members will not be portrayed as violent in the series, but I wouldn't be surprised if they are portrayed as ignorant and brain-washed and blind to the danger that is their religion.  As I said previously, to that I say "meh", if they want to know what my faith is about, come talk to me, I have a good book they can read. 

[HappyJackWagon]

19 minutes ago, pogi said:

I agree with you as to why people find this stuff entertaining in that it is the contrast that is jarring.  I fully anticipate being entertained by the series myself.  I don't anticipate feeling terribly defensive about the show.  I do feel defensive about some of the responses by posters on here who seem to be trying to implicate Mormonism in extremism and violence.  If that is what the series ends up trying to do, than it is flawed.  I think most people will see through it if that is the case. 

I fully anticipate a skewed portrayal of Mormonism in the series based on the comments from the producer and main character which make religion out to be a joke ("a musical comedy") or a "terror/horror" at its core.  If I had to guess, most of the members will not be portrayed as violent in the series, but I wouldn't be surprised if they are portrayed as ignorant and brain-washed and blind to the danger that is their religion.  As I said previously, to that I say "meh", if they want to know what my faith is about, come talk to me, I have a good book they can read. 

 

I believe the producer is former LDS and I believe Andrew Garfield spoke to many members to get a sense of their faith. So they may not have come to you, but they did talk to others with history and knowledge   If they ask 10 people they'll get 10 different interpretations of the faith.

 

[pogi]

31 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I know they were—and still are—mentally ill, but “revelation” provided a context and rationale for their delusions. 

Every principle worth pursuing has potential for good, but also has potential for harm - especially when taken to the extreme or "bastardized".

Power in general, for a simple example, gives one more potential to do good and also more potential to do harm.  Education does the same.   Revelation, power, education, etc. I think of medical drugs like opioids - we would be in a world of hurt without them, and yet we are cursed by them.  When you combine education and power, you can end up with the context for the creation of a nuclear bomb, for example, or you can end up with the context for the Dalai Lama.  You see similar things with revelation.     

[jkwilliams]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

 

I believe the producer is former LDS and I believe Andrew Garfield spoke to many members to get a sense of their faith. So they may not have come to you, but they did talk to others with history and knowledge   If they ask 10 people they'll get 10 different interpretations of the faith.

 

I read a long comment from one of the consultants. Other than his brief flirtation with fundamentalist Mormonism, his experience was pretty similar to mine. TV is necessarily reductive, so I’m not surprised that they focused on the stuff that attracts attention. 

[Teancum]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

So maybe two members (with one possible not following any theology when he did the violent things)?

Mormon history, meaning any that are under the Mormon umbrella is replete with violent events. From Mountain Meadows to the Allreds, the Laffertys, The Daybells, and Warren Jeffs.  I would toss Brigham Young into the pot as well.  You know that blood atonement thing.

Edited April 26, 2022 by Teancum