My Response To Jeremy Runnels Part 1 Hales And Google

[Robert F. Smith]

Two words: moral relativism.

 

Which actually makes this whole situation quite ironic.

You make it all sound so absurd, and yet it is easy to make moral judgments synchronically, but not so easily diachronically.  You may not like the label of "presentism," but ignoring it makes hypocrites of us all when we look down our noses at those from a different time who may not have our "enlightened" understanding.  What will those a hundred years hence make of our moral misjudgments?

 

Value judgments are so easily made: on musical tastes, properly modest clothing, whether booze and tobacco are O.K., the proper age of marriage, how many and what sort of marriages may be entered into simultaneously, etc.  How are we to take account of the old Sitz im Leben in light of the new one?

 

You're not going soft on us now, are you, cinepro?

[Wiki Wonka]

We're their husbands middle-aged when they married? You probably wouldn't be too upset if you had a 16 year-old daughter who was dating a boy her age, but had that same daughter been dating a 38 year-old I suspect things would be different. I find it ironic that within the Church today 14 year-old girls are discouraged even going on a date, yet 150 years ago God was commanding them to marry middle-aged men.

 

An interesting question. So we are really talking about two things here:

 

1) was it normal for women to marry in their teens?

2) was it normal for them to marry men who were in their mid to late 30s?

 

With regard to this specific group, it seems that the answer to question #1 is "yes," however, the data from this group provides no support for question #2. For this particular group, the husbands were mostly in their early 20's when they were married.

 

Esther Dutcher was born January 25, 1811 and married on May 11 or 19 in 1826. It looks this would make her 15 years and about 4 months old at the time of marriage. Albert Smith was born on 18 Nov 1804, which makes him about 6 years and a couple of months older than her, so he was about 21 when they married.

 

Mary Elizabeth Rollins was born on April 9, 1818. She married Adam Lighter in 1835 (previously stated age 16 is wrong - it should be 17). This makes her 17 at the time of her marriage. According to Compton's book "In Sacred Loneliness," Adam Lighter was 25 years old when they married.

 

Presendia Huntington was born on September 7, 1810 and married husband Norman Buell in 1827 at age 16. Norman was born April 29, 1805. This makes him about  5 years and 4 months older than Presendia, so he must have been 21 years old at the time of their marriage.

 

Patty Bartlett was born on February 4, 1795 and married husband David Sessions on June 28, 1812, so this make her 17 years old when she was married. David Sessions was born April 4, 1790, so this make him about five years older than her, so he must have been 21 years old at the time of their marriage.

 

Mary Heron was born November 10, 1804 and husband John Snider was born February 11, 1800. The married on February 28, 1822, so she was about 17 years and 3 months old and he was 22 years old at the time of their marriage.

[AndyDnom]

i don't think runnels aims to be a scholar. or make money in academics. saying he is "far from being a scholar" no more relevant than saying he is "far from being an NFL Quarterback."

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[Wiki Wonka]

 

I have two points to make concerning the subject of the thread.

 

First, Mr. Runnells's claim that Brian Hales is "not a scholar" of polygamy is ridiculous. Hales has authored seven books on the subject and more than a dozen articles, many of them in peer-reviewed journals. One of Hales's toughest critics, Gary Bergera, has this to say about Joseph Smith's Polygamy: 

 

"Hales is to be complimented . . . for his commitment to unearth, catalogue, verify, and describe every known, surviving reference to Smith's practice of plural marriage. For students of Smith and polygamy, Hales's direct quotations, bibliography, indexes, and some illustrations and appendices alone are more than worth the price of the three volumes. Hales is also to be applauded for his willingness to revisit, expand, and encourage the discussion of Smith's sexual life. In addition, Hales succeeds, I believe, in correcting some past misunderstandings, my own included. . . .

 

His three volumes contain an embarrassment of information and provocative analysis. Though he adopts what I believe is an unnecessarily defensive posture, reads his sources sometimes differently than I, and crafts interpretations with which I disagree, Hales is a writer to be taken very seriously. He is bold, courageous, innovative, and thoughtful. He raises questions, and proposes answers, that force us to revisit and reconsider some very complex subjects" (Gary James Bergera, review of Joseph Smith's Polygamy, in The John Whitmer Association Journal 33, no. 2 [Fall/Winter 2013]: 189, 197).

 

Second, Runnells's quotation of Richard Van Wagoner quoting Catherine Lewis quoting (allegedly) Helen Mar Kimball is problematic. For one thing, as others have already pointed out, Van Wagoner misrepresented his source: Lewis isn't reporting something Helen "confided" to her but rather something she claims to have overheard. And Lewis, it must be said, isn't an unbiased observer. She's writing an anti-Mormon exposé calculated to make Mormonism appear as sinister as possible (she was writing, she said, "from an earnest desire to warn the people against Mormon abominations"). Even if—improbably—Lewis accurately recorded Helen's words that day, the "more than ceremony" phrasing need not imply that sexual relations were involved. Most historians do not think the marriage was consummated (see, e.g., Kimball, Compton, Anderson, Faulring, Fluhman, and Hales) although the evidence is ultimately inconclusive either way.

 

 

Ah, I see it now:

 

"His three volumes contain an embarrassment....an unnecessarily defensive posture....with which I disagree".

 

An interesting side note: Hales actually offered the author of the CES Letter a set of his books, which he declined. Said he already had them.

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[MormonFreeThinker]

 

I have two points to make concerning the subject of the thread.

 

First, Mr. Runnells's claim that Brian Hales is "not a scholar" of polygamy is ridiculous. Hales has authored seven books on the subject and more than a dozen articles, many of them in peer-reviewed journals. One of Hales's toughest critics, Gary Bergera, has this to say about Joseph Smith's Polygamy: 

 

"Hales is to be complimented . . . for his commitment to unearth, catalogue, verify, and describe every known, surviving reference to Smith's practice of plural marriage. For students of Smith and polygamy, Hales's direct quotations, bibliography, indexes, and some illustrations and appendices alone are more than worth the price of the three volumes. Hales is also to be applauded for his willingness to revisit, expand, and encourage the discussion of Smith's sexual life. In addition, Hales succeeds, I believe, in correcting some past misunderstandings, my own included. . . .

 

His three volumes contain an embarrassment of information and provocative analysis. Though he adopts what I believe is an unnecessarily defensive posture, reads his sources sometimes differently than I, and crafts interpretations with which I disagree, Hales is a writer to be taken very seriously. He is bold, courageous, innovative, and thoughtful. He raises questions, and proposes answers, that force us to revisit and reconsider some very complex subjects" (Gary James Bergera, review of Joseph Smith's Polygamy, in The John Whitmer Association Journal 33, no. 2 [Fall/Winter 2013]: 189, 197).

 

Second, Runnells's quotation of Richard Van Wagoner quoting Catherine Lewis quoting (allegedly) Helen Mar Kimball is problematic. For one thing, as others have already pointed out, Van Wagoner misrepresented his source: Lewis isn't reporting something Helen "confided" to her but rather something she claims to have overheard. And Lewis, it must be said, isn't an unbiased observer. She's writing an anti-Mormon exposé calculated to make Mormonism appear as sinister as possible (she was writing, she said, "from an earnest desire to warn the people against Mormon abominations"). Even if—improbably—Lewis accurately recorded Helen's words (2–3 years after the fact), the "more than ceremony" phrasing need not imply that sexual relations were involved. In fact, most historians do not think the marriage was consummated (see, e.g., Kimball, Compton, Anderson, Faulring, Fluhman, and Hales), although the evidence is ultimately inconclusive either way.

 

 

That is a beautiful response, you know what you are  talking about. 

[MormonFreeThinker]

I believe that this is a response to this quote by Steven Harper: "Googling is not a synonym for seeking." (Steven C. Harper, Joseph Smith's First Vision: A Guide to the Historical Accounts (2012), 11–12), which is posted on the CES Letter response main page.

 

The response seems to assume that Harper said something more like "The search engine Google is not a synonym for seeking" rather than "Googling..." That's the only way that this response makes any sense. Everyone knows that Google is a search engine, and a tool for locating information. However, that isn't what Harper was talking about. When he says that "Googling is not a synonym for seeking" (Using "Google" as a verb rather than a noun), he is saying that a "seeker" who limits the bulk of their research to Google searches is not seriously "seeking" all of the available information. So all of this response about Google being "just a tool" like a library is a non sequitur - the conclusion has no relevance to the statement it is allegedly responding to. The author pretty much proves that when he says "The library is not a synonym for seeking" - he didn't understand the meaning of Harper's statement.

 

Another good response 

[MormonFreeThinker]

Here is the definition of strong historical evidence, something that the critics do not understand 

 

"You want lots of contemporary accounts, and you want these accounts to be independent of one another. You don’t want different accounts to have collaborated with one another; you want accounts that are independently attesting the results. Moreover, even though you want accounts that are independent of one another, that are not collaborated, you want accounts that corroborate one another; accounts that are consistent in what they have to say about the subject. Moreover, finally, you want sources that are not biased toward the subject matter. You want accounts that are disinterested. You want lots of them, you want them independent from one another, yet you want them to be consistent with one another" - Historian Bart Ehrman 

[cinepro]

You make it all sound so absurd, and yet it is easy to make moral judgments synchronically, but not so easily diachronically.  You may not like the label of "presentism," but ignoring it makes hypocrites of us all when we look down our noses at those from a different time who may not have our "enlightened" understanding.  What will those a hundred years hence make of our moral misjudgments?

 

Value judgments are so easily made: on musical tastes, properly modest clothing, whether booze and tobacco are O.K., the proper age of marriage, how many and what sort of marriages may be entered into simultaneously, etc.  How are we to take account of the old Sitz im Leben in light of the new one?

 

 

I guess it depends on whether or not you think God cares about such things, and whether or not the "proper age of marriage" is in the same category as "musical tastes" or "whether booze and tobacco are O.K."

 

Just so we're all clear, the apologists are supposed to be arguing that the Church is led by an omnipotent God who is all wise and the ultimate standard for morality (granting fallible leaders, of course), and the anti-mormons are supposed to argue that the Church is led by uninspired men who, while perhaps "wise", have no more inspiration from a "god" than the leaders of every other religion.  As a critic, I'm just pointing out that in this case, you may win the battle by conceding cultural influence and lack of inspiration, but you're not going to win the war if you do that.

Edited August 29, 2014 by cinepro

[Scott Lloyd]

... You may win the battle by conceding cultural influence and lack of inspiration, but you're not going to win the war if you do that.

I see a false dichotomy here. "Cultural influence" does not necessarily equate to "lack of inspiration."

 

Again, it is too simplistic to ignore or disregard the cultural differences in an earlier time and milieu where commitment and marriage were more apt to be honored as opposed to a highly sexualized society where too many young lives are harmed or ruined by exposure to rampant promiscuity and rejection of traditional values.

 

I'm only suggesting that an omniscient Deity may well take all these things into account as He inspires His servants.

 

The verities remain the same: no sexual behavior outside a lawful marital relationship (defined as between a man and a woman), but the means by which those values are promoted and sustained may differ from age to age.

Edited September 2, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Robert F. Smith]

Here is the definition of strong historical evidence, something that the critics do not understand 

 

...............................................  

William Lane Craig vs. Bart D. Ehrman, “Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?” Debate held March 28, 2006, at College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, Massachusetts, online at http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-there-historical-evidence-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus-the-craig-ehrman#ixzz3BpIBXt9l, and http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-there-historical-evidence-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus-the-craig-ehrman#ixzz3BpHwd6qB .

 

Ehrman: “What kinds of evidence do scholars look for when trying to establish probabilities in the past? Well, the best kind of evidence, of course, consists of contemporary accounts; people who were close to the time of the events themselves. Ultimately, if you don’t have a source that goes back to the time period itself, then you don’t have a reliable source. There are only two sources of information for past events: either stories that actually happened based on, ultimately, eyewitness accounts or stories that have been made up. Those are the only two kinds of stories you have from the past – either things that happened or things that were made up. To determine which things are the things that happened, you want contemporary accounts, things that are close to the time of the events themselves, and it helps if you have a lot of these accounts. The more the merrier! You want lots of contemporary accounts, and you want these accounts to be independent of one another. You don’t want different accounts to have collaborated with one another; you want accounts that are independently attesting the results. Moreover, even though you want accounts that are independent of one another, that are not collaborated, you want accounts that corroborate one another; accounts that are consistent in what they have to say about the subject. Moreover, finally, you want sources that are not biased toward the subject matter. You want accounts that are disinterested. You want lots of them, you want them independent from one another, yet you want them to be consistent with one another.”

 

The debate is one worth listening to.  Of course, under the rubric of contemporary accounts must be included archeological (forensic) evidence, which must be interpreted.  Evidence, whether ancient or modern, must embody Ehrman's concerns.

[Ran]

 

William Lane Craig vs. Bart D. Ehrman, “Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?” Debate held March 28, 2006, at College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, Massachusetts, online at http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-there-historical-evidence-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus-the-craig-ehrman#ixzz3BpIBXt9l, and http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-there-historical-evidence-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus-the-craig-ehrman#ixzz3BpHwd6qB .

 

Ehrman: “What kinds of evidence do scholars look for when trying to establish probabilities in the past?

 

. . . 

 

Moreover, finally, you want sources that are not biased toward the subject matter. You want accounts that are disinterested.

 

 

This raises the question as to whether unbiased sources — and unbiased historical criticism, for that matter — are even possible.

 

[cinepro]

As a side note I thought I'd mention that Thomas L. Kane—the Gentile "Friend of the Mormons"—married his 16-year-old second cousin, Elizabeth, when he was 31. They became engaged when she was 15. This, however, was quite unusual for the time. Early marriage was not the norm in the northeastern US.

 

It should also be pointed out that in the late 1950's, singer Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13-year-old cousin when he was 22.  Sadly, his presentist fans did not approve.

[Scott Lloyd]

It should also be pointed out that in the late 1950's, singer Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13-year-old cousin when he was 22.  Sadly, his presentist fans did not approve.

At least he married her -- which is arguably more honorable than what other celebrities before and after Lewis did.

 

Curiously, in this day and age, marrying an underage person might well be viewed as more scandalous than fornicating with one and then abandoning that victim to pick up the pieces of a ruined life.

Edited September 2, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Robert F. Smith]

........................................................................

Just so we're all clear, the apologists are supposed to be arguing that the Church is led by an omnipotent God who is all wise and the ultimate standard for morality (granting fallible leaders, of course), and the anti-mormons are supposed to argue that the Church is led by uninspired men who, while perhaps "wise", have no more inspiration from a "god" than the leaders of every other religion.  As a critic, I'm just pointing out that in this case, you may win the battle by conceding cultural influence and lack of inspiration, but you're not going to win the war if you do that.

That makes good sense, cinepro, if and only if we are talking about apologists for normative Muslim-Jewish-Christian dogma.  Most Protestants (especially the Calvinists among them) defend that omnipotent and omnibeneficient god for very traditional reasons and are very irked at the Mormons for suggesting a quite different theological Grundlage.  Mormon theology basically points out that the normative dogma is bankrupt and self-contradictory, something which skeptics and atheists have been saying for some time:  "The emperor has no clothes!"   As for the anti-Mormons, they miss this point entirely, and would probably not be anti-Mormons is they had gotten their facts straight.

 

What I am saying, cinepro, is that you have made a category mistake here.  Mormon theology asserts that we are coeternal with God, that we all have necessary existence, and that we are indeed godlings.  The God of Mormonism is imminent rather than transcendant, and He speaks to us in our fallible human condition -- according to our linguistic and cultural limitations (II Ne 31:3, D&C 1:24).  As President Uchtdorf pointed out recently, the Church is led by fallible leaders, and mistakes have been made along the way.  That has been and will always be the case, till Kingdom Come.

 

Rather than derail this thread, I would be willing to carry this subject forward in a new thread, but that is up to you.

[Robert F. Smith]

This raises the question as to whether unbiased sources — and unbiased historical criticism, for that matter — are even possible.

 

Of course not.  So we must be ever on our guard against confirmation bias (confirmation of what we want to believe before we even examine the evidence).  Those who become professional historians do this to some degree through academic preparation, which entails the learning of canons of good historiography, peer review, and constant collegial interchange of ideas and data.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Brian Hales is a Machine 

Edited December 7, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[MormonFreeThinker]

Dan Vogel on December 4, 2014 at 11:58 am said:

"Google is a great tool, but it makes some people lazy. Gathering the data is simple; interpreting it quite another thing" 

 

Most internet critics do not understand that. 

Edited December 7, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[CMZ]

The argument over "intimacy" in Joseph Smith's plural marriages baffles me.  According to Mormon history and doctrine, even if Joseph Smith consummated every polygamous marriage, it wouldn't have been wrong.  That's all you have to say.  Apologists come up with these odd and convoluted justifications and arguments to try explain something that they think is (or would have been) 100% moral and acceptable.  

 

Heck, if sex in plural marriages was wrong, then I've got terrible news for you.  Because even if Joseph Smith was good and never violated that rule, everyone else did.  Especially Brigham Young.  But if Brigham's practice of fathering children with his plural wives was okay, then why is there a need to defend Joseph Smith from the idea that he too consummated his plural marriages?

 

Agreed. I don't know why people get so hung up on this issue and bend over backwards to try to prove that the relations weren't consummated. Maybe they were or maybe they weren't. I could see it becoming something more of an issue when it gets to the youngest wives, but even then there are things that mitigate the matter.

[CMZ]

Dan Vogel on December 4, 2014 at 11:58 am said:

"Google is a great tool, but it makes some people lazy. Gathering the data is simple; interpreting it quite another thing" 

 

Most internet critics do not understand that. 

 

The sad thing is that people think Google somehow has the omniscience of God and that it will always show them the one true source of information on a topic as its #1 search result. Perhaps even sadder is the fact that people think it's the only search engine that can or should be used.

[Calm]

What other search engines would you suggest? Most of the time google is sufficient, but every now and then...

[CMZ]

Going off of the one time I heard Brian Hales speak in a fireside (and was somewhat involved in an informal small group discussion with him afterwards) I can say that his overall attitude was one of being very willing to collect all the facts and let them speak for themselves, while also recognizing that we don't have all the facts and that there are spiritual realities that exist and that if some people don't recognize those spiritual realities it's nobody else's place to force them to. If it's not clear to anyone by now, nothing is ever solved by arguing endlessly about historical issues (e.g., Party #1 thrusts with: "Joseph Smith got married to a 14-yr. old!" Then Person #2 parries with: "But their relationship may not have been consummated!" And so forth and so on. Of course this then devolves to questions of Brian Hales' character.) People get lost in minutiae like that and then can never get unentangled from it all.

 

This leads into my main observation of Runnells' writings where it seems to be about expecting other people (some CES director, FAIR, etc.) to supply all answers to all questions he could possibly have. But these people and organizations have no more responsibility to supply answers than does anyone else in the Church, Runnells included. We can get lost forever in historical minutiae and lose our minds over it or we can take the Holy Spirit for our guide and move on from it, realizing that questions that aren't answered now will be answered later.

"D&C 45:57 For they that are wise and have received the truth, and have taken the Holy Spirit for their guide... " I think that most members of the Church have done the first part but not the second part, and they fly to bits the second they encounter anti-Mormon stuff. The next thing you know they go making a website about how they are really sincere seekers after truth, and how deeply Mormon they were before they started questioning things ("I was so Mormon that I was an Eagle Scout AND went on a mission AND went to BYU..."), and how they wish the Church would just come clean. Then they say things like, "I believe that members and investigators deserve all of the information on the table to be able to make a fully informed and balanced decision as to whether or not they want to commit their hearts, minds, time, talents, income, and lives to Mormonism," as though they are the only person to have ever felt that way and as though the Church hopes people do not make a fully informed and balanced decision.

 

Then they go and become a born-again and feel like somehow that has put them in a safe and invulnerable position, where all of a sudden everything makes perfect sense and nobody could ever ever argue against it. But they don't realize they will still have to contend with others who don't agree with their new faith, such as atheists who say things recorded in the Bible never actually happened, or that if they did then it was only people who recorded them who read some religious interpretation onto them.

 

Jeremy is in a position I and others have been in where you start questioning things and you go through a bit of a crisis feeling someone has deceived you yet he doesn't allow this phase to lead him to greater knowledge but away from it.

 

 

The expanding access we enjoy to the Prophet’s work and teachings fills previous voids in our knowledge, confirms some things we already knew or thought, and supplies answers to questions we might have had. The information also raises new questions and highlights new areas of inquiry to pursue. Realistically, however, we ought not to expect in this life to know all the answers (or for that matter, all the questions).

 

While some answers come quickly or with little effort, others are simply not available for the moment because information or evidence is lacking. Don’t suppose, however, that a lack of evidence about something today means that evidence doesn’t exist or that it will not be forthcoming in the future.

http://www2.byui.edu/Presentations/Transcripts/Devotionals/2013_9_24_Christofferson.htm

Edited December 28, 2014 by CMZ

[CMZ]

What other search engines would you suggest? Most of the time google is sufficient, but every now and then...

 

People used to be fine working with more than one search engine (Webcrawler, Metacrawler, Lycos, HotBot, Ask Jeeves, Alta Vista [who created image search, although Google gets credit for it], and more), but then a point in time came where everyone went into mass hypnosis and felt like they should only ever use Google, as though they were somehow obligated to. I tell people about the DuckDuckGo search engine, which doesn't track your searches, and they say, "No, thanks. I'm going to stick with Google." And this was right after they complained about Google tracking their searches. *palm to forehead*

Since people are choosing to use only Google, just like how in times past they chose to use only Microsoft products when there were superior alternatives available, then what will happen is that Google will follow the same trajectory as Microsoft where they become all-powerful and people complain about it but won't do anything about it because they are stuck in that rut.

[Robert F. Smith]

............................................................ Party #1 thrusts with: "Joseph Smith got married to a 14-yr. old!" Then Person #2 parries with: "But their relationship may not have been consummated!" And so forth and so on. Of course this then devolves to questions of Brian Hales' character.) People get lost in minutiae like that and then can never get unentangled from it all.

How true.  However, what about those of us who think that response #2 is what one would expect from a yokel who doesn't know that people living a couple hundred years ago did not have the same cultural attitudes and customs we have today.  My response to #1 is typically "so what?"  Why would that matter to anybody who knows anything at all about history?

 

............................................................ We can get lost forever in historical minutiae and lose our minds over it or we can take the Holy Spirit for our guide and move on from it, realizing that questions that aren't answered now will be answered later.

St Peter (I Peter 3:15), St Paul (Philippians 1:7,17), B. H. Roberts, and Hugh Nibley have each very well shown us how to defend the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and we cannot always appeal only to the Holy Spirit -- except to those who are willing to try that.  We can also follow the experimental method provided in Alma 32.  We can prove all things and latch onto that which is good (I Thessalonians 5:21).  We are not restricted to only one epistemology.

 

"D&C 45:57 For they that are wise and have received the truth, and have taken the Holy Spirit for their guide... " I think that most members of the Church have done the first part but not the second part, and they fly to bits the second they encounter anti-Mormon stuff. The next thing you know they go making a website about how they are really sincere seekers after truth, and how deeply Mormon they were before they started questioning things ("I was so Mormon that I was an Eagle Scout AND went on a mission AND went to BYU..."), and how they wish the Church would just come clean. Then they say things like, "I believe that members and investigators deserve all of the information on the table to be able to make a fully informed and balanced decision as to whether or not they want to commit their hearts, minds, time, talents, income, and lives to Mormonism," as though they are the only person to have ever felt that way and as though the Church hopes people do not make a fully informed and balanced decision.

 

Then they go and become a born-again and feel like somehow that has put them in a safe and invulnerable position, where all of a sudden everything makes perfect sense and nobody could ever ever argue against it. But they don't realize they will still have to contend with others who don't agree with their new faith, such as atheists who say things recorded in the Bible never actually happened, or that if they did then it was only people who recorded them who read some religious interpretation onto them.

 

Jeremy is in a position I and others have been in where you start questioning things and you go through a bit of a crisis feeling someone has deceived you yet he doesn't allow this phase to lead him to greater knowledge but away from it.

Yes.  Like "cheap grace," knowledge cannot really be had on the cheap.  It comes hard.  If you are in for the long haul, you just might get there.  It may take a lifetime, but it is well worth it.