James Malm: Women Who Do Not Wear Head Coverings In Church Tend To Be Feminists Who Are Usually LEWD and Lascivious

 

What TRUE followers of the Father will be wearing at James Malm's Oregon feast site:

James Malm, the Official Church Pharisee of the Church of God, in yet another bastardization of the message of God, has declared that true Christian women who worship the Father WILL wear head coverings in church.  Those that do not are usually feminists at heart and many times tend to be lascivious in the sexual appetites.

Malm starts off with this:

I Corinthians 11:1-16
Because the instructions of Paul are based on the culture of Israel and today most are ignorant of that culture, it is necessary to provide that cultural background before directly addressing Paul’s instructions.

The law that God gave to Moses acknowledged the wearing of head coverings by married women and expressly commanded  that a woman accused of adultery is to have her veil removed.

Numbers 5:18    And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and uncover the woman’s head,   and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse:
5:19 And the priest shall charge her by an oath, and say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse: 5:20 But if thou hast gone aside to another instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee beside thine husband:
5:21 Then the priest shall charge the woman with an oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell; 5:22 And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen.
5:23 And the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot them out with the bitter water: 5:24 And he shall cause the woman to drink the bitter water that causeth the curse: and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter.
5:25 Then the priest shall take the jealousy offering out of the woman’s hand, and shall wave the offering before the LORD, and offer it upon the altar: 5:26 And the priest shall take an handful of the offering, even the memorial thereof, and burn it upon the altar, and afterward shall cause the woman to drink the water.
5:27 And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. 5:28 And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.

This is an allegory for us today, that when we depart from dedicated loyalty to Jesus Christ and the whole word of God; we are spiritually adulterers against Jesus Christ for being zealous for others instead of being zealous for Jesus Christ and his word.

God uses the physical to teach us spiritual lessons.  I will go into these things in depth when I do the Numbers Study.  For the moment I only want to demonstrate how  Paul’s instructions in 1 Cor 11 are based on the law of God and that Paul was revealing a spiritual principle, by applying that law to religious practices as opposed to applying it to all public life. 

Paul did not say that all married women were to cover their heads at all times in public ,as was the custom in Israel!   Rather he said that the women should cover their heads when praying or prophesying [discussing] the scriptures; clearly taking this physical reality and revealing it’s spiritual lessons.

That law clearly implies that if a lewd woman is to have her veil removed; that she is forfeiting the sign of a faithful woman because of her lewdness.  Therefore the veil is a sign of a woman’s fidelity to her husband and according to Paul, spiritually head coverings are a sign of fidelity to the religion and commandments of God.  Again this is the law of God and of Holy Scripture.

So why in the world would a custom from 2,000 years ago be relevant to women today?  Notice it is always the women that gets the short shift on everything.  Men, particularly COG men and Church Pharisee's, never seem to be able to do anything wrong, it is always the women's fault. 

That law clearly implies that if a lewd woman is to have her veil removed; that she is forfeiting the sign of a faithful woman because of her lewdness.  Therefore the veil is a sign of a woman’s fidelity to her husband and according to Paul, spiritually head coverings are a sign of fidelity to the religion and commandments of God.  Again this is the law of God and of Holy Scripture.

Some would say:  What do the customs of 2,000 years ago matter?

They matter to Jesus Christ, who inspired the law and the words of Paul and had them preserved for thousands of years FOR OUR INSTRUCTION! 

 
I honestly can see why James Malm's wife divorced him.  Can you imagine the hell this woman put up with over the years!

Sin, rebellion, lewdness and lasciviousness entered the Church of God through Loma Armstrong's feminist leanings.

Malm goes on to quote from several authors about head coverings for women.  Then he says this:

This identification as being married [married women wore head coverings] protected the women from unwanted attention by wife seekers; however it was more than that.  Under God’s law the woman came under the authority of her husband when she married.  The wicked wife removed her veil to play the whore in complete DISRESPECT for the lordship of her husband when he was away. 

So if this was true, then Malm is claiming that Loma Armstrong was a whore because she refused to wear a head covering while her husband was away.

Loma was also not repsectable of her husband:

We now see that wearing the covering veil, represented a respectable married woman, and also represented RESPECT for the authority of her husband.    While removing or refusing to wear a covering veil represented an unfaithful wife, a fallen woman an adulteress.

Malm has this to say about his pissed off thing he calls "jesus" who expects women to wear head coverings:

The scriptures make it clear that to Jesus Christ; the cloth covering of head neil is a symbol of modesty and innocence.

Genesis 24:654   And Rebekah lifted up her eyes, and when she saw Isaac, she lighted off the camel. 24:65 For she had said unto the servant, What man is this that walketh in the field to meet us? And the servant had said, It is my master: therefore she took a vail, and covered herself.

Isaiah 47:1     Come down, and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon, sit on the ground: there is no throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans: for thou shalt no more be called tender and delicate. 47:2 Take the millstones, and grind meal: uncover thy locks [remove your symbol of modesty and innocence, your head covering] , make bare the leg, uncover the thigh, pass over the rivers.  47:3 Thy nakedness [hidden sins] shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen: I will take vengeance, and I will not meet thee as a man.

 Malm writes:

In the church of God it was Loma Armstrong a strong feminist who brought in unclean furs and forced Herbert to abandon hair coverings.  These things then became HWA tradition contrary to scripture.

Then quotes:

The feminist revolution is what changed things in America. So those who argue that we have a different culture have obviously adopted the feminist culture as their own; because America’s founders (the wives) were covered as are the faithful today.  

If God’s faithful have always held to the practice of Head Covering as an Apostolic Ordinance, and the Devil’s crowd have always faught against it (which is historical fact); then what side do you want to support? Many theories have been put forth to avoid the obvious teaching of the passage, and deliver women from being a “gazing stock” in this feminist society; but truth is truth and cannot he supplanted by those who wrest the Scripture for their own purposes.   

The Greek word for “cover” in all verses except where speaking of the hair (11:15) is a form of Katakalupto – a hanging veil, from kata – down or downward, and Kalupto – to cover or veil. To take off this veil in public in the first century would equate you with a “feminist” or a woman of loose morals, so it was even all one as if she were shaven (taking the man’s position of short cut hair).She was not shaven or shorn, but removing the material veil, like the man, was saying the same thing as removing her natural long hair, like the man.  It was usurping the masculine role and violating the headship order.  

Then James gives HIS interporeation of what HE thinks I Corintinas 11:1-16 means:

1 Cor 11

Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. ²Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
³But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

The head of Christ is the Father and it would not be right for Christ to do anything to dishonour his Father. The head of every man is Christ and it is not right to show disrespect or to dishonour our head who is Jesus Christ.  And if we do dishonour Christ do we not also dishonour the Father?  For Christ and the Father are one. 
Now the head of the woman is her husband, and it is not right that she should do any thing to dishonour her husband; for if she brings dishonour to her husband she also brings dishonour to his head even Jesus Christ and the Father.

⁴Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. He dishonours Christ.
⁵But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

 
If a woman has her head uncovered, she was considered promiscuous by the custom of Israel and the law of God.  For having her head uncovered is a dishonour to her husband and is the same as broadcasting that she refuses the authority of her own husband; which means that she also refuses the authority of his head, even Christ and the Father.

⁶For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

 
If a woman refuses to cover her head, then let her head be shaved or her hair cropped close.  This cannot mean that the hair is the covering; since if she had hair and it were the covering spoken of; why would Paul command that the hair be shaved off, if it is the covering that he commands?

⁷For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God:

 
The husband is a type of Christ who will become the husband of the New Covenant. but the woman is the glory of the man. The woman is to cover her head as a symbol that she is under the power or authority of her husband and of his head, Christ and the Father.  For the man symbolizes Christ as the husband of spiritual Israel.

⁸For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. ⁹Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

 
As the woman was made for the man; even so the bride was made for Christ.

¹⁰For this cause ought the woman to have [a symbol of modesty, being under authority] power on her head because of the angels.

The word angelos means messenger and here refers to those heavenly spirit messengers as well as to visitors from outside the congregation who might give an evil report of the congregation for the promiscuous behaviour of the brethren there.  The point being made is that an example of humility and modesty is being set for the spirits and for others.

¹¹Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

¹²For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

 
The man and the wife are one flesh before the Lord and this wearing of a covering does not divide the woman from the man; indeed if is a symbol of respect and unity between husband and wife.

¹³Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

 
People of Israel; whose custom and law is that an uncovered woman is a promiscuous person and an unfaithful wife; is it right that a woman come before God with the attire of a rebellious and rejected  wife?

¹⁴Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

 
How long is long?  This is a reference to Deu 22:5   The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God. Paul’s statement refers to a woman taking on a  masculine appearance, or a man appearing as feminine.  A woman’s hair is inappropriate when it tends to make her look masculine regardless of actual length.  A man’s hair is inappropriate when it makes him look feminine.  Paul is not referring to a little hair over the collar or some such artificial nonsense.

¹⁵But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

 
Feminine hair is a glorious crown or covering upon the head of the ladies.  This glory should be covered in a gesture of modesty and respect for her husband, when she prays or discusses the word of God.

While “abundant” hair is a glory, this does not mean women cannot cut or curl their hair to make it look its best.  Not everyone has the good fortune to be born with thick and/or luxurious hair, and there is nothing wrong with cutting it into a nice style that suits our faces and figures.  We are simply not to cut our hair into anything resembling a “masculine” style.  Our bodies are, after all, Christ’s vessels and we are commanded to take care of them, from top to bottom and the inside-out (1 Cor. 6:19):

The Creator has always been adamant about the roles and conduct of each gender.  He made it very clear that women are to “act feminine” and dress modestly:

Deuteronomy 22: 5 “A woman is not to wear men’s clothing, and a man is not to put on women’s clothing, for whoever does these things is detestable to the Lord your God.

1 Timothy 2:9. So also, that women (appear) in a chaste fashion of dress; and that their adorning be with modesty and chastity; not with curls or with gold, or with pearls, or with splendid robes;  10. but with good works as is becoming to women who profess reverence for Elohim.

1 Peter 3: 3. And don’t adorn yourselves with the external ornaments of curls of the hair, or of golden trinkets or of costly garments.  4. But adorn yourselves in the hidden person of the heart with a mild and pure spirit, an ornament that is precious before Elohim.  5. For so also the Set Apart women of old who trusted in Elohim, adorned themselves and were subject to their husbands….

The above obviously shows that the wearing of today’s micro-miniskirts and revealing cleavage, etc., is not allowed or acceptable!

14. Does not nature teach you that in a man, if his hair grows long, it is a reproach to him?    

It’s a shame for a man to grow long hair, if his goal is to look like a woman.  Torah requires that there be a clear distinction between male and female (Deuteronomy 22:5).  Each person must be clearly recognizable according to their natural birth gender.  Long hair on a man is NOT the sole issue; those taking Nazarite vows wore long hair some for life (Samson) and others for a season.  Paul himself took a Nazarite vow.  Rav Shaul  [Paul] is teaching against pagan sexuality practices, of those who do things to make themselves appear as the opposite gender.

¹⁶But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

 
The subject here  is the Jewish custom of men wearing prayer shawls when they pray and of women praying with their glorious hair uncovered;  which is the precise opposite of the scriptures. Paul has explained the scriptural law and the customs of Israel and reveals to the Corinthians that men covering their heads is not scriptural and dishonours Christ; while women covering their heads is both scriptural and appropriate.

Can you imagine after reading all of this bullshit  that it is going to be like at Malm's feast site?  Men will be wearing Jewish prayer shawls and women will be wearing head coverings exactly like Yisryl Hawkins COG cult in Texas does.

Men will be in front and women delegated to the back in separate areas.  Menstruating women cannot be around CLEAN men.

Malm continues:

The covering of a woman’s veil of glory, her hair; was a matter of proper modesty and a token that she was married [under the power of a husband].  

For a woman to go uncovered was to be seen as a rebellious or adulterous wife; and was a great shame in Israel.  Since such behavior brought shame on her and her head [husband] and his head [Christ] it was to be avoided for the sake of modesty and acceptable behavior.

Look at the state of the church today!  Why are we in such a state?  Because we lack God’s spirit, and we lack God’s spirit because we do not obey him with zeal and a whole heart; instead every group leader is doing what is right in his own eyes.   

Sin and evil entered the COG because women were rebellious and lewd.  Their men must have liked it because they too became lack and were swayed by beguiling world s of false shepherds.  Thank God Malm came along to set us all straight!

I had thought that this head covering was a small thing and after more study I find that is goes to the very basics of the problem in the COGs; Personal P R I D E and a lack of respect for God!

We have lost sight of the fact that what we do is a direct reflection of our attitude of heart!  A woman can be covered fully and still be immodest in attitude, it is not the clothes that makes one modest, but the attitude.  The clothes are only the outward sign which can be deceitful.

If one is modest in heart; one will dress modestly. One may be wanton and still dress modestly.  True modesty cannot be legislated by dress codes since it is of the heart!  Yet our God KNOWS the hearts of humanity, therefore if a woman cries out in prayer during some sudden situation: The Eternal will hear!  His hearing is not dulled by what we wear!

Women WILL be wearing head coverings at Malm's cult feast site, you can be guaranteed of that:

To those who do love their God I say:

Ladies, there is no law against wearing a head covering on your hair and it opens up a whole new world of understanding when it is done!  By showing that extra degree of RESPECT for our God when in prayer or in study; it will promote a personal degree of modesty and humility before God, which is sadly lacking today!

It will promote spiritual growth and development by setting a proper foundation of true humility before God as we pray.

James Malm: Loma Dillon Armstrong Brought Filthy Unclean Furs Into The Church

If you thought the stupidity of the Church of God's greatest Pharisee could not get any crazier, you are wrong!

Today, Apostle and false teacher James Malm, in yet another bastardization of God's word, declared that Loma Dillon Armstrong, was a FEMINIST and brought the use of UNCLEAN furs into the Church of God.

The Chief Pharisaical Jackass writes:

In the church of God it was Loma Armstrong a strong feminist who brought in unclean furs and forced Herbert to abandon hair coverings.  These things then became HWA tradition contrary to scripture.

What can be said after reading this other than WTF???????????????????????

It Can't Be Anything BUT Personal Opinions and Ideas

" If I were trying to palm myself off as a prophet, I would just spout a personal opinion at this point without worrying about whether I was right or wrong, or what God says. But the above question (Who are the 3 Shepherds)  is an example of something we must wait to see.......(Because I don't really know)  But we might ask: will events of August catapult God’s Work to something immediately the size of “medium,” “large” or “colossal”? While I have ideas, I do not have the answer. We will wait and see together."  David C Pack, The Final Anouncement

 I was once in a discussion with someone over the topic of Biblical intent, presentation and meaning when the other person said, "Well, your just using human reasoning."   I paused a moment and then said, "What kind of reasoning do you use?"   He just looked at me and said nothing.   I suspect he understood that anything either he or I said to each other about the topic would be human reasoning.  Because we are human, it is the kind of reasoning we do.  He knew better evidently, than to tell me he used God's kind of reasoning. Not all are that wise.

 Everything you and I have ever heard about what the Bible says or means, or what this or that church or organization, prophet, priest or king is doing,  is merely a personal opinion and idea of what it or they say and "know."   We have this concoction of books we call the Bible, written by multiple humans at different times and it will eternally be subject to the ideas and opinions of humans.  If one thinks it is seamless, coherent , inerrant and written either a code or put together as a puzzle, in my human reasoning, one has not done their homework or would be too troubled by the outcome to do so.

 Everything Gerald Waterhouse ever uttered about either who HWA was, how the world was going and what was surely going to happen was merely his idea and opinion of the topics. All the hype and speculation about the Place of Safety which, to me, evolved from speculation to fact was just ideas and opinions and it still is to this day.   There was not a bit of reality and truth in the whole thing.  Nothing actually came to pass as he thought it would or should and he has been dead for a number of years now which pretty much proves it.  But I suppose that is just my idea and opinion.  Or as Dave Pack says,  "we will have to see" which means I don't know and don't want to take responsibility for declaring how it will all be and have that blow up in my face.  (It already has)

 I always got a cautionary feeling in the ministry when I head such phrases as "God is now moving...,"  "God is now going to....",  "Christ is inspiring...", "God wants us to...",   and so on.  It's where I evolved the response "And you know this?"   Our most recent addition to the opinions and ideas gone berserk is of course Dave Pack of the Restored Church of God.  He just knows the mind of God and Christ.  He knows their every meaning and intent.  He knows what they are up to , not in all the details, but in the over all plan.  It's awesome and quite overarching.

 Dave says:

  "You must see what they are NOT announcing, and why they never will—and what GOD is bringing upon them."

 " An enormous and detailed prophecy is now being carried out by God. He is preparing events to soon bring His people back together—all of them."

 "I have put in a great many hours preparing what you read because there is value in getting people to think about what will happen BEFORE it happens"

 "In short, what does all this sudden growth mean? Wherever you think God’s Church is, you surely would agree with this much. God would have to inform His Church of what He intended to do....... We would also have to know the year of fulfillment EARLY ON or we would waste a tremendous amount of time researching, analyzing and preparing for a prophecy that lay far in the distance. There would have to be enough time to prepare."

 " Rather they are speaking out against the meaning of the prophecy, thus choosing to end their ministry—choosing to give themselves no chance to continue serving God’s people. This is because they have gone on public record against how Christ is regathering His flock (recall Matthew 12:30-32)—and because they do not want to give up their positions of power."

 One could go on forever quoting just how knowing Dave Pack is about how it all was, is and is to come.  He can turn an opinion into a "fact" and an idea into a reality even if they are neither.  Humans are good at that.  Ron Weinland was good at this until he wasn't.  Well, on second thought, he wasn't even good on turning opinions and ideas into anything interesting.  Truly, truly there was never born of woman one who could give a more boring sermon no matter the topic.  With Ron Weinland, his ideas and opinions never got out of the gate to become even remote possibilities. 
 He just didn't know it.

 Sam Harris in Letter to a Christian Nation observed:

 "Along with most Christians, you believe that mortals like ourselves cannot reject the morality of the Bible. We cannot say, for instance, that God was wrong to drown most of humanity in the flood of Genesis, because this is merely the way it seems from our limited point of view. And yet, you feel that you are in a position to judge that Jesus is the Son of God, that the Golden Rule is the height of moral wisdom, and that the Bible is not itself brimming with lies. You are using your own moral intuitions to authenticate the wisdom of the Bible — and then, in the next moment, you assert that we human beings cannot possibly rely upon our own intuitions to rightly guide us in the world; rather, we must depend upon the prescriptions of the Bible. You are using your own moral intuitions to decide that the Bible is the appropriate guarantor of your moral intuitions. Your own intuitions are still primary, and your reasoning is circular.

We decide what is good in the Good Book. We read the Golden Rule and judge it to be a brilliant distillation of many of our ethical impulses. And then we come across another of God’s teachings on morality: if a man discovers on his wedding night that his bride is not a virgin, he must stone her to death on her father’s doorstep (Deut 22:13-21). If we are civilized, we will reject this as the vilest lunacy imaginable. Doing so requires that we exercise our own moral intuitions."

In other words, it is all just idea and opinion and we tend to promote the ideas and opinions we like and shun the ones that are somewhat dicey.  In religion, the ones we like are also God's ideas and truths or we would not do them but if we notice some problems with the story, the problem noticing is human reasoning.  As noted many times in the past, the Bible itself is full of put downs for anyone who notices that the ideas presented are less than satisfying, true or even plausible.  How often have you been told "My ways are not your ways says the Eternal", "There is a way that seems right to a man but the ways thereof end in death", "The wisdom of man is foolishness with God", or "God does not think as a man thinks."   You can't win and you're never going to be correct to someone who thinks your reasoning is just "human reasoning" and theirs is of a higher order. People like this also cry "persecution" when someone disagrees with them or points out the flaws in their thinking.  Recall the WCG receivership of 1979 was Satan's wrath visited upon the Church for being the Church when in fact it really was about misappropriation of funds and palace intrigue.

I have addressed the "know this that in the last days there will be scoffers" concept in 2 Peter.  The fact that that was directed to the folk in the first and second century AD because members of the early church were questioning the Apostles on what exactly "soon" and "time is short" meant since people were dying off and the Apostle Paul had long ago died and wasn't the "we shall be changed" he thought he and they would be.  Those who observed the truth of the matter and what was not true were labeled "scoffers." The motive of "lust" was thrown in to paint them as evil of heart and intent.  However, the scoffers were correct in their observations. Their human reasoning won out over the reasonings of those with their heads in the clouds. Dave Pack's head is in the clouds as is Gerald Flurry and a host of others who would like you to think they have a special line to God and what is really going on.  They don't.  They are using human reasoning whitewashed with self delusion.  Of course this is merely my human reasoning speaking but as Dave Pack says,  "we'll just have to wait and see."

Dave Pack likes to think he is not uttering mere opinions and human reasonings but rather just reporting what God is doing.  He starts from the wrong premise that the Minor Prophet Haggai is not history but up until Dave Pack came along, unfulfilled prophecy.  Using my human reasoning, that strikes me as ridiculous.  He won't take the title of Prophet because he is merely and clearly explaining what God is thinking and doing.  Besides Dr. Bob has taken that title and Dave does not copy.  He has to originate and let's face it, Joshua the High Priest of Haggai trumps even the prophets.  Probably gets him off the hook as well if God does not come through at this time we can rejoice in being given more time to repent and for the message to go out etc... 

The Churches of God and really, all religions and churches, pastors and Apostles are 100% run on human reasonings and ideas expressed. Why?  Because they are human beings.  So far they have been smart enough not to say that God or the voices in their heads told them.  From their forms of government to the reasons why the faithful must or should turn some or all of their resources  over to someone, or as Dave says, "it all belongs to God and the brethren," it is all human reasoning.  "Thus saith the Lord" actually means, even in scripture, "This is what I believe the Lord would thus say at this point in my life and what I perceive as my calling."  Everything Dave Pack has said in his announcements are simply the ideas and opinions of Dave Pack.  There seems to be no room for being mistaken, misspoken or misunderstanding at this point in Dave's mind.  September may be different in this regard but I would not count on that either.  Human reasonings promoted as exactly what the Deity is also thinking and doing is a tough nut to crack.  Ron Weinland is in prison and he still doesn't seem to understand why..

Dave says, "Some weeks ago, when explaining the year that the prophecy is fulfilled, I listed perhaps two dozen reasons for 2013. There are perhaps twice that many more reasons that have been listed by those of us inside the process of learning what God is doing."

So Dave is saying that there really are 48 reasons why that clearly show what God IS doing and the inside 16 have been having more fun than a barrel of monkeys coming up with more than the brethren and certainly us can imagine or probably comprehend at this time.  Dave does not seem to understand that his 24 released proofs are not all that airtight and impressive to us mere mortals outside the knowing of Dave and of course God.  If the secret and remaining 24 are as logical, clear and obviously God ordained proof as the first 24, well.....we shall see.  But all of these announcements of Dave over the past several months of things which must shortly come to pass are merely ideas and opinions of his own making and gone along with by those of like mind, reasonings, ideas and opinion. 

While we are not numbered among those insiders, we have every right to notice, observe and have our own human views of how ridiculous this approach Dave has taken to himself and the scriptures seems to those not under his control and leadership. In our human reasonings and with our human ideas I suspect we merely are trying to spare some sincere folk more religious and theological abuse and all that it brings to the table to be dealt with.