“Yonder Is Matter Unorganized”; Why Joseph Was A Visionary.

[elguanteloko]

As science has progressed we know that the earth is millions of years old and that it took millions of years to be “organized” from already existing matter that is billions of years old.

...ok, so, what is 'unorganized matter'? The earth took millions of years to be how it is because of physical laws. What did God do?

The (our) universe did begin with a sudden “big bang” (if you will) but this type of “fusion” would require existing atoms to create.

no atoms at all. The theories about the beginning of the universe attempt to explain atoms in the first place... but not with atoms.

Then when God created man he did so (once again) with existing matter. He did not simply speak man into existence but formed man from the dust of the earth…”For dust thou art and unto dust thou shalt return”.

This is not against creation ex-nihilo, either. God created all matter and matter moved according to the laws (that God also created) and humans were formed eventually.

Really, the only difference between the Mormon view and that of "ex nihilo"-ists is that, in one, God created everything (what he created, we have no idea since we have something different now) and on the other one God did something we don't know what he did (since he didn't create the laws either and we don't know what 'unorganized matter' is). LOL IOW, nothing with meaning.

[LeSellers]

It isn't clear to me whether you are trying to comment on the Hebrew text or the English translation. In English, of course, us and our are both plural pronouns. In the Hebrew text, "let us make" is one word, a Hebrew verb, na'aseh, which is the qal imperfect first-person common plural form; no separate word translates as "us" because the first-person plural is built into the verb. The Hebrew words translated "in our image, according to our likeness," besalmenu kidmutenu, use first-person plural suffixes where we would use the pronoun "our."

But, as you repeatedly state, the plural pronouns "us" and "our" are part of the verbs. They were not imagined or invented by the translators (who were Trinitarians anyway). It's not like 1 Cor 15:29, where the word "they" is a (necessary) invention by the translators, because an accurate translation would be extraordinarily cumbersome in English.

This is a gross oversimplification. Biblical Hebrew often used plural forms where no plural meaning was intended.

You ought to be able, then, to provide examples of these frequent plural forms without plural meanings.

As I mentioned, in English (and French, and Italian, as well), we have collective nouns like "family" and "committee" that are singular in form, but plural in concept (no family or committee consists of a single person). These typically take a singular verb, but it is obvious that the members of the collective are not the same individual. "Eloheim" seems to me to be a mirror image of the collective noun: plural in form and meaning, but treated as if it were a singular.

I claim no expertize in Hebrew. This is just a possibility I bumped into in my thoughts. But it is a reasonable thought.

Lehi

Edited November 30, 2011 by LeSellers

[altersteve]

Steve,

You wrote:

How do you account for Isaiah 44:24, where Jehovah (YHWH, the LORD) states that he alone made the world?

"Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb,

I am the LORD that maketh all things;

that stretcheth forth the heavens alone;

that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself" (Isa. 44:24 KJV)

This question seems to be based on a couple misunderstandings. First, the fact that Jesus Christ (Jehovah) created the universe "alone" does not mean that He did not do so under the direction of the Father. Second, the modern LDS usage of the terms "Elohim" and "Jehovah" to refer specifically to the Father and the Son is based on an interpretation of D&C 110:1–4; we do not insist that these titles were used the same way in ancient times. In fact, members of the Church in the 19th century, including Joseph Smith, often used the name "Jehovah" to refer to God the Father, and to Jesus Christ on other occasions. So it's not a set rule or doctrine that Jehovah must refer to Jesus Christ and Elohim to Heavenly Father, it's simply the terminology that we currently use.

Furthermore, in ancient times the name "YHWH" (Jehovah) was simply understood to be the name of God (the Father and the Son). Since Jesus Christ only speaks on behalf of the Father, and often times as if He were the Father, the name can equally be applied to Heavenly Father as well. It's sort of a "family name" in this respect. It is LDS doctrine that ancient Saints understood the distinction between the Father and the Son just as well as we do, based on what the Book of Moses and the Pearl of Great Price say, but just as Latter-day Saints understand that God may refer to either the Father or to the Son, or to both collectively, so did the ancient Saints. "Jehovah," or "YHWH," therefore, once again, was simply their name for God, and probably did not refer to one or the other specifically. So for them to say that YHWH created the universe by Himself is no problem.

And finally, you're taking this verse out of context. Isaiah 44 deals with idolatry, and the Lord's statement here is simply to assert that He is the Creator. False gods, the Lord explains in verses 9 through 20, are created by human hands. He goes on to give us a reminder that "I have formed thee; thou art my servant" (verse 21), and then tells the earth to "break forth into singing" (verse 23) in celebration of the fact that it was He, not a false god, who created her. Verse 24, therefore, is simply making a point about the Lord's power, authority, and supremacy over false idols. To interpret it as saying that the Father and the Son did not create the earth together distorts Isaiah's intent.

Edited November 30, 2011 by altersteve

[altersteve]

...ok, so, what is 'unorganized matter'? The earth took millions of years to be how it is because of physical laws. What did God do?

Unorganized matter is exactly what it says: matter that has not been organized into anything. Using the physical laws that you mentioned, God organized this matter into the universe, but how He did so is something we don't fully understand.

[elguanteloko]

Unorganized matter is exactly what it says: matter that has not been organized into anything.

You amaze me, altersteve.

Rearranging the words isn't an explanation and my point is pretty simple: any attempt at pointing at something and saying "Look! that's what JS meant by 'unorganized matter' " is just a desperate attempt because we have zero idea what he meant by it. You could have pointed at non-life and say "That's unorganized matter" or, later on, to other planets that can't sustain life and say "That's unorganized matter", or, even later on, to the singularity and say "That's unorganized matter", ad infinitum. The God of the gaps at it's worst, if you ask me.

That's why trying to score points for JS when talking about unorganized matter and science fails horribly. Same with "eternal laws" or "spiritual matter".

Using the physical laws that you mentioned, God organized this matter into the universe, but how He did so is something we don't fully understand.

this is where things start getting meaningless. Where do you get that God used the same physical laws we have? It is because of the physical laws we have planets as they are and other things as they are... what did God do? Everything the physical laws did God did? That seems silly. Also, if you don't know how God organized "this matter into the universe" (you probably meant "unorganized matter into the universe" there)... where do you get that God used the physical laws we measure today?

[altersteve]

You amaze me, altersteve.

Rearranging the words isn't an explanation and my point is pretty simple: any attempt at pointing at something and saying "Look! that's what JS meant by 'unorganized matter' " is just a desperate attempt because we have zero idea what he meant by it. You could have pointed at non-life and say "That's unorganized matter" or, later on, to other planets that can't sustain life and say "That's unorganized matter", or, even later on, to the singularity and say "That's unorganized matter", ad infinitum. The God of the gaps at it's worst, if you ask me.

That's why trying to score points for JS when talking about unorganized matter and science fails horribly. Same with "eternal laws" or "spiritual matter".

There was matter (or energy, or whatever). But it was not organized. It was chaos. Then God organized it. It wasn't chaos anymore. Ta-da!

Not that hard to understand. No, we don't know exactly what it is, or at least I don't. Maybe the singularity, I have no idea. Who cares?

this is where things start getting meaningless. Where do you get that God used the same physical laws we have? It is because of the physical laws we have planets as they are and other things as they are... what did God do? Everything the physical laws did God did? That seems silly. Also, if you don't know how God organized "this matter into the universe" (you probably meant "unorganized matter into the universe" there)... where do you get that God used the physical laws we measure today?

I just told you what God did. He used the physical laws, which are eternal and which He did not create, to create the universe. He did not create the eternal laws, but He uses them for His purposes. He did the same thing here.

By saying that we don't know how God organized matter, I meant to say that we don't know how God uses these laws to accomplish His purposes.

Stop putting words in my mouth and stop making everything more complicated than it needs to be.

[Bernard Gui]

...ok, so, what is 'unorganized matter'? The earth took millions of years to be how it is because of physical laws.

Here is some unorganized matter in the process of being organized 3000 years ago:

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap111116.html

Bernard

[elguanteloko]

Here is some unorganized matter in the process of being organized 3000 years ago:

http://apod.nasa.gov...d/ap111116.html

Bernard

1) Where do you get that is what JS meant or what unorganized matter is?

2) What did God do? Planets and constellations form because of physical laws so, where does that leave "God organizing matter"?

[Log]

Planets and constellations form because of physical laws....

Do they? Has this been directly observed, or is it an inference requiring certain philosophical assumptions?

[thesometimesaint]

elguanteloko:

Don't conflate the tool with the tool user.

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

I had asked you how you account for Isaiah 44:24, which says that Jehovah alone made the universe. You wrote:

This question seems to be based on a couple misunderstandings.

I don't think so, as I shall try to explain.

First, the fact that Jesus Christ (Jehovah) created the universe "alone" does not mean that He did not do so under the direction of the Father.

One might as well say that the fact that words are used in a sentence does not mean that they have any specific meaning. Let us suppose that in Isaiah 44:24 it is Jesus Christ speaking, and that Jesus Christ made the universe under the direction of his Father. It would seem out of place, to put it mildly, for Christ to claim that he alone made the world and fail to mention that his work was done as the Father's subordinate. Isaiah 44:24 is emphatic: Jehovah claims that he made everything, that he did so alone, and that he did so by himself. How might he have asserted more plainly that he was the sole Creator, if this is not in fact his meaning? I would venture to say that had Isaiah quoted Jehovah as saying "I am the sole Creator of all things" you would finesse such a statement in the same way you are finessing the actual text. The words don't matter if you can override their plain meaning in this way. And the problem is compounded by the fact that in LDS theology God the Father is regarded as a deity superior to and ruling over Jesus Christ.

Second, the modern LDS usage of the terms "Elohim" and "Jehovah" to refer specifically to the Father and the Son is based on an interpretation of D&C 110:1–4; we do not insist that these titles were used the same way in ancient times. In fact, members of the Church in the 19th century, including Joseph Smith, often used the name "Jehovah" to refer to God the Father, and to Jesus Christ on other occasions. So it's not a set rule or doctrine that Jehovah must refer to Jesus Christ and Elohim to Heavenly Father, it's simply the terminology that we currently use.

I understand all this, but you are not connecting the dots. Are you saying that in Isaiah 44:24 it is actually Heavenly Father who is speaking?

Furthermore, in ancient times the name "YHWH" (Jehovah) was simply understood to be the name of God (the Father and the Son). Since Jesus Christ only speaks on behalf of the Father, and often times as if He were the Father, the name can equally be applied to Heavenly Father as well. It's sort of a "family name" in this respect. It is LDS doctrine that ancient Saints understood the distinction between the Father and the Son just as well as we do, based on what the Book of Moses and the Pearl of Great Price say, but just as Latter-day Saints understand that God may refer to either the Father or to the Son, or to both collectively, so did the ancient Saints. "Jehovah," or "YHWH," therefore, once again, was simply their name for God, and probably did not refer to one or the other specifically. So for them to say that YHWH created the universe by Himself is no problem.

The speaker in Isaiah 44:24 appears to be a specific being, identified as Jehovah, who speaks there in the first person singular, "I," "myself." I don't see how to make Isaiah 44:24 fit the idea that the divine "Family" made the world as a family project. In different contexts, you will say that YHWH is the name of the Father, or the name of the Son as a different deity from the Father, or the family name shared by both the Father and the Son, and the choice is based not on context or the wording of the passage but on making the statement appear to fit LDS doctrine.

And finally, you're taking this verse out of context. Isaiah 44 deals with idolatry, and the Lord's statement here is simply to assert that He is the Creator. False gods, the Lord explains in verses 9 through 20, are created by human hands. He goes on to give us a reminder that "I have formed thee; thou art my servant" (verse 21), and then tells the earth to "break forth into singing" (verse 23) in celebration of the fact that it was He, not a false god, who created her. Verse 24, therefore, is simply making a point about the Lord's power, authority, and supremacy over false idols. To interpret it as saying that the Father and the Son did not create the earth together distorts Isaiah's intent.

Had Isaiah wanted to say that two Gods made the universe, he could have done so. Had he wanted to say that the true Gods made the world but the false gods represented by idols had no part in it, he could have said so. That isn't what we find in Isaiah 44:24.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

One might as well say that the fact that words are used in a sentence does not mean that they have any specific meaning. Let us suppose that in Isaiah 44:24 it is Jesus Christ speaking, and that Jesus Christ made the universe under the direction of his Father. It would seem out of place, to put it mildly, for Christ to claim that he alone made the world and fail to mention that his work was done as the Father's subordinate. Isaiah 44:24 is emphatic: Jehovah claims that he made everything, that he did so alone, and that he did so by himself. How might he have asserted more plainly that he was the sole Creator, if this is not in fact his meaning? I would venture to say that had Isaiah quoted Jehovah as saying "I am the sole Creator of all things"

If memory serves JEHOVAH first identifies himself to Israel (for the first time) in Exodus 6: 3...in so speaking he says, "I appeared unto many (so much for not seeing his face) "under the name of God almighty" for I was not known to them as JEHOVAH (to paraphrase from memory)...he was "under the Father", he is subject to the Father's will. In John he says he has a Father and a God, which by the way in the same scriptures tells us this being is also our Father and God. In Hebrews the Father is called the "Father of Spirits". All this from the Bible.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Pa Pa,

You wrote:

No, I am not ignoring the plural forms "let us make" and "in our image." But asserting that "obviously" elohim is plural does not make it a numerical plural. Again, it helps to have some direct familiarity with ancient Hebrew and how the language worked. This

You wrote:

Try Modalism.

You are repeating Christian Apologetics...which trys to explain away such language (Badly I might add). Or do you have a Ph.D in Hebrew languages?

Edited December 1, 2011 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[mfbukowski]

Do they? Has this been directly observed, or is it an inference requiring certain philosophical assumptions?

I understand what you mean. Arrogance and ignorance are a pretty obnoxious combination.

[mfbukowski]

forget it.

Edited November 30, 2011 by mfbukowski

[altersteve]

One might as well say that the fact that words are used in a sentence does not mean that they have any specific meaning. Let us suppose that in Isaiah 44:24 it is Jesus Christ speaking, and that Jesus Christ made the universe under the direction of his Father. It would seem out of place, to put it mildly, for Christ to claim that he alone made the world and fail to mention that his work was done as the Father's subordinate. Isaiah 44:24 is emphatic: Jehovah claims that he made everything, that he did so alone, and that he did so by himself. How might he have asserted more plainly that he was the sole Creator, if this is not in fact his meaning? I would venture to say that had Isaiah quoted Jehovah as saying "I am the sole Creator of all things" you would finesse such a statement in the same way you are finessing the actual text. The words don't matter if you can override their plain meaning in this way. And the problem is compounded by the fact that in LDS theology God the Father is regarded as a deity superior to and ruling over Jesus Christ.

Thanks for responding.

It probably is Jesus Christ speaking in this verse, and in almost every other verse where God is speaking, since the Father usually only speaks to introduce or bear witness of His Son (as in Matthew 3:17, 3 Nephi 11:7, JS–H 1:17, etc.), but I believe that such a distinction is unnecessary. It is God who is speaking, plain and simple. Whether it is the Father or the Son makes no difference. Besides, when Christ says, "I made the earth by myself," and since He is speaking on behalf of Heavenly Father, as He always does (see John 12:49–50, 14:24), it could be said that He is giving His Father all the credit and all the glory. It's a wonderful example of His perfect humility and the love and reverence He has for His Father. He gives the glory to His Father throughout the scriptures frequently (see for example John 7:16, 8:42; Mark 9:37; Luke 18:19, 22:42; Moses 4:2). So I think your argument here is trivial.

I understand all this, but you are not connecting the dots. Are you saying that in Isaiah 44:24 it is actually Heavenly Father who is speaking?

No, I was simply pointing out that "Jehovah" does not need to refer specifically to Jesus Christ here. You seem to be assuming that Latter-day Saints believe that whenever Jehovah is mentioned, it must refer to Christ, but this is not the case. But like I said above, such a distinction is meaningless and unnecessary. Remember that he that seeth the Son also seeth the Father (John 12:45); likewise, when you hear Jesus Christ speak, you hear Heavenly Father speak. He says what the Father would have Him say, and what the Father would have Him say only: "He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me" (John 12:50).

The speaker in Isaiah 44:24 appears to be a specific being, identified as Jehovah, who speaks there in the first person singular, "I," "myself."

Why would He not use first person? If it is Jesus Christ who is speaking here, we should expect Him to do so, since He is speaking on behalf of the Father. He is using His Father's words.

I don't see how to make Isaiah 44:24 fit the idea that the divine "Family" made the world as a family project. In different contexts, you will say that YHWH is the name of the Father, or the name of the Son as a different deity from the Father, or the family name shared by both the Father and the Son, and the choice is based not on context or the wording of the passage but on making the statement appear to fit LDS doctrine.

First, I'm not trying to make this passage "appear to fit LDS doctrine," because I believe it fits LDS doctrine already. Second, my statement that Jehovah is a "family name" of sorts was not meant to imply that the creation of the world was a "family project," only to say that YHWH, or Jehovah, is a name that can apply to either the Father or the Son, or both collectively. Once again, I believe that to make a distinction between the Father and the Son in this instance is not only unnecessary, but it also distorts the meaning somewhat. "Jehovah" in this verse refers to God. Full stop. We don't need to go any further than that. Again, it makes no difference whether the Father or the Son is the speaker here.

Had Isaiah wanted to say that two Gods made the universe, he could have done so.

He definitely could have if he wanted to. But that has nothing to do with what he was trying to teach here.

Had he wanted to say that the true Gods made the world but the false gods represented by idols had no part in it, he could have said so. That isn't what we find in Isaiah 44:24.\

I think this is exactly what Isaiah was saying. This verse is not meant, however, to say that two beings created the earth, or that one being created the earth under the direction of another. All it is meant to do is assert the superiority of YHWH over all else. In context, it tells is that false gods are made by human hands, but the world and humans were made by God's hands. It's making a point about God's power and authority. That is the message of this verse. The fact that the world was created by Jesus Christ under the direction of the Father is, to be perfectly honest, a different topic altogether.

Edited November 30, 2011 by altersteve

[elguanteloko]

Do they? Has this been directly observed, or is it an inference requiring certain philosophical assumptions?

Both. It's called science.

[Log]

Both. It's called science.

Then you have misunderstood your sources. Just as Darwinian evolution has not been observed to produce the interesting structures attributed to it, neither have planets nor constellations been directly observed being formed.

[KevinG]

[elguanteloko]

Then you have misunderstood your sources. Just as Darwinian evolution has not been observed to produce the interesting structures attributed to it, neither have planets nor constellations been directly observed being formed.

I said both because from observation one forms theories (which have many philosophical assumptions, like almost any idea). The same thing happens with any theory in science. If by "direct observation" you mean a frame-by-frame type of vision of the whole process... then, yes, it hasn't been directly observed (it would be strange if it had with planets and macroevolution). We do see "Darwinian evolution' happening under microscopes, though, because it takes far less time to have observable effects.

[Log]

I said both because from observation one forms theories (which have many philosophical assumptions, like almost any idea). The same thing happens with any theory in science. If by "direct observation" you mean a frame-by-frame type of vision of the whole process... then, yes, it hasn't been directly observed (it would be strange if it had with planets and macroevolution). We do see "Darwinian evolution' happening under microscopes, though, because it takes far less time to have observable effects.

And so, you concede one, but not the other, of my points. I think you only disagree with the point about Darwinian evolution because you are unaware of the complete and utter lack of observational evidence showing that any interesting structure has ever come about via it. Darwinian evolution has been shown to break functional structures in populations, say, bacterial flagella, for example, but it has never been observed to create them.

[elguanteloko]

And so, you concede one, but not the other, of my points.

I don't get what there was to concede that I did. A given theory is both, part observation and part idea. If something is mere observation then it is a fact and it isn't a theory. If it is only an idea then it isn't based on empirical facts as modern science requires (and may be philosophy only or something else).

I think you only disagree with the point about Darwinian evolution because you are unaware of the complete and utter lack of observational evidence showing that any interesting structure has ever come about via it. Darwinian evolution has been shown to break functional structures in populations, say, bacterial flagella, for example, but it has never been observed to create them.

Exhibit A:

http://www.scienceda...80417112433.htm

ETA:

BTW, I see you have a Popper quote in your signature. You might want to read what happened afterwards:

http://ncse.com/cej/6/2/what-did-karl-popper-really-say-evolution

Edited December 1, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Log]

I don't get what there was to concede that I did.

Clearly.

Exhibit A:

http://www.scienceda...80417112433.htm

Which doesn't prove what you think it proves. In fact, it's not even relevant, and the fact that you can't understand why it isn't relevant means I really shouldn't have this conversation with you.

ETA:

BTW, I see you have a Popper quote in your signature. You might want to read what happened afterwards:

http://ncse.com/cej/...y-say-evolution

You might click the links in my sig to find out what actually happened. As you show no signs of understanding what the debate is actually about, I shall cease conversing with you about it.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Log

[thesometimesaint]

Evolution of the Dog:

From Pekingese to St. Bernard and greyhound, dogs come in such startling variety it's easy to forget they belong to the same species. The profusion of breeds today -- at least 150 -- reflects intense, purposeful interbreeding of dogs in the past 150 years.

One consequence of interbreeding to create purebreds with sharply individual traits is that many disease-causing genes have become concentrated in these breeds. Because of the growing concern about health problems and the availability of powerful methods to hunt genes, scientists are hard at work on the "dog genome project." As with the Human Genome Project, the goal is to locate and map canine genes, particularly those that play a role in disease. Genes that influence behavior are also of great interest.

At the same time, the entire history of dogs and their relationship with humans has undergone some rethinking recently, thanks in large part to high-tech molecular dating methods that can determine evolutionary relationships and chronologies.

The dog, Canis familiaris, is a direct descendent of the gray wolf, Canis lupus: In other words, dogs as we know them are domesticated wolves. Not only their behavior changed; domestic dogs are different in form from wolves, mainly smaller and with shorter muzzles and smaller teeth.

Darwin was wrong about dogs. He thought their remarkable diversity must reflect interbreeding with several types of wild dogs. But the DNA findings say differently. All modern dogs are descendants of wolves, though this domestication may have happened twice, producing groups of dogs descended from two unique common ancestors.

How and when this domestication happened has been a matter of speculation. It was thought until very recently that dogs were wild until about 12,000 years ago. But DNA analysis published in 1997 suggests a date of about 130,000 years ago for the transformation of wolves to dogs. This means that wolves began to adapt to human society long before humans settled down and began practicing agriculture.

This earlier timing casts doubt on the long-held myth that humans domesticated dogs to serve as guards or companions to assist them. Rather, say some experts, dogs may have exploited a niche they discovered in early human society and got humans to take them in out of the cold.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Evolution of the Dog:

From Pekingese to St. Bernard and greyhound, dogs come in such startling variety it's easy to forget they belong to the same species. The profusion of breeds today -- at least 150 -- reflects intense, purposeful interbreeding of dogs in the past 150 years.

One consequence of interbreeding to create purebreds with sharply individual traits is that many disease-causing genes have become concentrated in these breeds. Because of the growing concern about health problems and the availability of powerful methods to hunt genes, scientists are hard at work on the "dog genome project." As with the Human Genome Project, the goal is to locate and map canine genes, particularly those that play a role in disease. Genes that influence behavior are also of great interest.

At the same time, the entire history of dogs and their relationship with humans has undergone some rethinking recently, thanks in large part to high-tech molecular dating methods that can determine evolutionary relationships and chronologies.

The dog, Canis familiaris, is a direct descendent of the gray wolf, Canis lupus: In other words, dogs as we know them are domesticated wolves. Not only their behavior changed; domestic dogs are different in form from wolves, mainly smaller and with shorter muzzles and smaller teeth.

Darwin was wrong about dogs. He thought their remarkable diversity must reflect interbreeding with several types of wild dogs. But the DNA findings say differently. All modern dogs are descendants of wolves, though this domestication may have happened twice, producing groups of dogs descended from two unique common ancestors.

How and when this domestication happened has been a matter of speculation. It was thought until very recently that dogs were wild until about 12,000 years ago. But DNA analysis published in 1997 suggests a date of about 130,000 years ago for the transformation of wolves to dogs. This means that wolves began to adapt to human society long before humans settled down and began practicing agriculture.

This earlier timing casts doubt on the long-held myth that humans domesticated dogs to serve as guards or companions to assist them. Rather, say some experts, dogs may have exploited a niche they discovered in early human society and got humans to take them in out of the cold.

Very informative post, but how did we arrive here based on the OP? To whom was this addressed?