All Song Lyrics and Downloads
The Octaman Biography
Octaman Live Shows
Get The Music CD's
Band Bios - Photos
Octaman Reviews
The Rock School
The Rock Album
CD Poster Art
Osprey Cam
Octa-Views
Octa-Blog
Octa-Bio2
BibleTalk
Myspace
Youtube
PayPlay
iTunes
Story
Rose
Mom
Zion
Ego

Ben Stein Vs. Darwin

Was Charles Taze Russell a Mason?

I found this at the following link and thought that it would be of interest
to the friends here.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=15932&site=3

------------------

The debate which divided and which still divides the small world of the
former Jehovah's Witnesses on the French Internet, is about to know if the
founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, namely Charles Taze Russell was a mason.
Having been an actor of this debate, it seemed to me convenient of summary
my ideas in writing to take advantage of it the readers of this site.


Russell took his ideas from the American second Adventism. One of the
inspirers of Russell was called Henri Grew. The Watchtower society, always
worried about criticisms which it undergoes, although it forbids her
followers to listen them, recently dedicated an article on this person, as
well as on Georges Storrs. Although as usual, it does not explain her
sources, they siad in Page 24 of the french's Watchtower of October 15,
2000, that Henri Grew believe that " the Christians do not have to belong to
a secret society, such as freemasonry ".After, the first's version of this
Webpage, i found on a site the exact quotation, it was in fact a pamphlet
explaining that a christian must noy be a freemason:

http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/grew%20masonic.htm


One can wonder so effectively Henri Grew did not influence Russell because
from the first brochure, Russell classified the freemasonry in the
organizations of the world which will not bring any help to the human beings
at the time of the Big Distress preceding God's war.

In the page 58 of its booklets Object and Manner pf our Lord’s Return,
commenting On apocalypse 6 15, which said :

15 And the kings of the earth, and the people of high rank, and the
commanders, and the rich, and the strong, and every slave, and every free
man hid in caves and in cliffs of mountains. 16 And ceaselessly they say to
mountains and to cliffs: " Fall on us and hide us from the face of The one
that sits on the throne and of the anger of the Lamb … He said :

They will seek hiding, also, in such great rocks of worldly society as Free
Masonry, Odd Fellowship, etc., but none of these shall be able to deliver
them in the day of the Lord’s anger.”

One sees that Russell, from 1877 , believe that freemasonry is a work of the
"world" , that is the world remote from God and is not of use to anything in
front of God.

he takes it especially for a society of protection, or of mutual aid.

As Mickaël Tussier's site on the page reveals it, on June 15, 1895, Russell
has said in the Watchtower about the freemasonry :

To a question of a reader who asks :

DEAR BROTHER:--I would like to have your opinion on the subject of life
insurance. They are organizing lodges all around here--United Workmen,
Knights of Pythias, Red Men, Masons, Odd Fellows, etc. They are working it
just about like sectarianism in the churches. Would like to see an article
in the TOWER on the subject. Yours in the love of the truth, W. E. KILLAM.
OUR REPLY TO THE QUERY.

Russell answers :

" We notice as well as the order of Freemasonry, if he is judged by his past
history, has some secret object or schema, other than brotherhood and grant
in the times of diseases or death. And as far as we can judge it, there is
certain degree of profane worship or of mumeries connected to the rites of
this order and of some the others, as far as members do not understand, but
which, in a lot of case, serve for satisfying the tendency of the natural
spirit, for the worship, and consequently prevents them from looking for
God's worship in spirit and really - through Christ, the only authorized
Intermediary and Grand Master. In this measure, such societies waste a
precious time in madnesses, rites and ceremonies divested of sense, and by
substituting the worship of their officers, and the use of words and symbols
which have no sense for them, in the worship of God, of a way suited through
Christ and according to the spiritual knowledge of the Spirit of a healthy
spirit. In this measure, these societies are cruelly bad, without taking
into account earnings or financial losses in connection with the membership
to one of them "


Russell criticizes austerely Freemasonry in this Watchtower. He didn't put
it any more in the category of a simple brotherhood of mutual aid as he
seemed to perceive it in 1877, and as his reader seemed to perceive it. But
what was interesting in this message, is that Russell made a mistake in this
statement about Freemasonry and that a former freemason pointed out him its
errors in the Watchtower of the 1 er in August, 1895 :

“A BROTHER, once very deep in Secretism, and who knows that the Editor has
had no such experience, writes as follows:--

DEAR BROTHER RUSSELL:--Your remarks under caption of Secret and Beneficial
Societies in TOWER, of June 15, '95, seem rather funny to me. You hit the
nail very fairly considering that you were hammering so much in the dark. I
am glad that you defend the principle of protection as afforded by
legitimate or old line companies, life, fire and accident. With you,
however, I think their days are numbered. No human business was ever
organized with broader and more philanthropic intentions than Insurance, and
no business has been so abused and diverted from its real purposes. When
Insurance fails (as it has failed) from the effect of selfishness, we can
not hope that any human work will succeed. As to the secret societies, they
use a ritual applicable to each different degree, which is fully as
reasonable as that of many of the churches, and like those of the churches,
it is usually of heathen origin. The worship of the Sun appears prominently
in Masonry, and so it does in the service of the Catholic and Episcopal
churches. The term "Worshipful," as used in masonry, is now practically
obsolete, but was formerly and generally used as a term of respect. I
occupied the station of "Worshipful Master" for three years, but I never
received the adoration of my fellow mortals, and I certainly never gave it
to others. Your suggestion, that it is done ignorantly, is a good
suggestion, but it does not apply in that case. Perhaps no man in my state,
during the twenty odd years I was a member of the fraternity, gave more
careful study to the symbolism of Masonry, its moral teaching, and its
jurisprudence. While masonry does not inculcate the worship of its officers,
it does what is worse; for in its essence the symbolism used in the
ceremonies are derived from devil worship. Although no longer unequally
yoked with those unbelievers (2 Cor. 6:14-17), I do want to say for those
who are still in the bondage that they have much excuse. Masonry consists
very largely in a series of moral instructions, taught agreeably to ancient
usage, by types, symbols and allegorical figures. It is a system, and a very
beautiful system--as is very much of Satan's work--when seen from the
worldly standpoint. Your fellow-worker in the best (not the worst) of
bonds.”

*** Another brother writes: - - the masonry is not the Christianity; and the
one that is so deceived by thinking that it is , is led by this fact in a
labyrinth of painful errors. I think that I know about what I speak about, I
was during seven years 'a master' of a 'lodge', and I conferred on it one
hundred degrees. The masonry does not clean sins, and does not save our soul
of the death; and it is a grave question for a child of God to pass of time
and of some money in an institution of the world. There is nothing pure
which is ground, but purity comes down of at the top. "

One can so note of what follows, that Russell did not understand big matter
of the rites of the Freemasonry and that there were former masons becamed
Bible's Students who teached him a little more on, an gave him a negative
opinion, which he already had, from a priori inherited from his Adventism's
background.

In 1904, Russell speaked again about Freemasonry, in connection with the
mutual aid Society, he disadvised another time his followers to be mason, by
identifying the masonry to Babylon the Great, a false religion's system :
Page 640,641 of the french's Volume VI of the Studies of Scriptures called "
The New Creation "

" This puts in front of us the quite complete problem of orders, societies,
etc., and privileges which possesses New Creation face of these
organizations. Is it suitable that new creatures take part in these
societies?

We answer that if associations of churches are purely religious and trade
union movements of mutual aid are laic, generally ,, there are the others
else who have religious aspects and laic aspects. As we understand, for
example the Freemasons, Odd-Fellows, the Knights of Pythias, etc., carry out
certain rites and certain ceremonies of religious character. Naturally we do
not pursue any hostile campaign against the members of these different
orders, no more than we make it against different sectarian religious
systems. We put on the same foot all the systems which understand ceremonies
and educations with religious character, etc. And we all consider them as
parts of Babylon, whose certain parts are more clean and the others less
clean, but that nevertheless are all full of confusion, error, contrary to
the divine intention such as reveals it the organization of the primitive
Church, and in the instructions that gave to them, by the word and by the
example, the inspired Founder and his twelve apostles.

We advise the New creation to have nothing to do with some of these
societies, clubs, orders, churches with semi-religious character, but " go
out from the middle of them, be separated and not touch what is impure " (2
Corn. 6:17) "

In 1913, in a fearless speech, Russell compared the Christian Church with a
secret society of which the Grand Master is Jesus Christ and members of this
society not knowed each others because only Jesus knows them. It is one of
the main argument of the upholders of Russell's membership in freemasonry.
Russell declared himself freemason of this masonry, the biblical masonry.
Throughout the speech, he tried to make analogy between the Church and a
secret society, certainly to seduce some masons in the room.

He made some faults in regard of the freemasonry in the text showing that he
didn't know always enough about masonry as he had admitted it in the
previous answer to a mail of an ex-mason reader.

For example :

" And so, if we speak to our Mason friends about the temple and about its
meaning, and on the way to be a good Masons and about the Big Pyramid, which
is the main emblems they use, "

Regrettably, the pyramid is not the main masonic emblem, it is a urban
legend which has its origin in the presence of the eye in the pyramid on the
US Dollar and Russell repeats only this gossip.

On the site very informed on the masonry, " masonicinfo ",

http://www.masonicinfo.com/eye.htm


the author reveals that symbol of " the pyramid is sometimes used as well
(particularly in relation to the Scottish Rite degrees)" (and not in the
Royal Arch as asserted by the upholders of Russell's masonry). The masonic
author Brent S . Morris, quoted in this site declares about the pyramid :

"A pyramid, whether incomplete or finished, however, has never been a
Masonic symbol. It has no generally accepted symbolic meaning, except
perhaps permanence or mystery. The combining of the eye of providence
overlooking an unfinished pyramid is a uniquely American, not Masonic, icon,
and must be interpreted as its designers intended. It has no Masonic
context"

We are very far from the main emblem of the freemasonry as assertes by
Russell.

At another place Russell declared :

" although I was never Mason, I heard that the Masonry has something which
illustrates very well everything this. "

Russell asserted that he was not a freemasonry ( "terrestrial" we shall
add), the upholders of the thesis of the membership of Russell's masonry
explain that he belonged in fact to The Knight Templar which was in fact an
paramasonic organization, and so not completely masonic which allowed him to
say that it was not mason.

Regrettably, Knight Templar are masons, it is necessary to be freemason to
become a Knight Templar as reveals the site of this movement in the United
States at the URL: http://www.knightstemplar.org/freqaq.html

Under the intertitle " How to become a Knight Templar "

"To petition a Commandery of Knights Templar or membership, you must first
be a member of a Masonic Lodge and other pre-requisite bodies such as the
Royal Arch Chapter and possibly a Council of Royal and Select Masters. (This
depends on the state where you reside) To petition a Commandery one must
profess a belief in the Christian Religion. One who does not know a Knight
Templar or a Master Mason should contact the local Masonic Temple for
information or The Grand Encampment of Knights Templar of the United States
of America, 5097 N. Elston Avenue, Suite 101, Chicago, Illinois 60630-2460.”


Russell could not be a Knight Templar, nor a freemason because for being a
Knight Templar, it was necessary to be already a freemason.

We have coveres the written's materiel of Russell about the freemasonry.
Russell in his writings and speeches made regularly mistakes about
freemasonry, even though on his last speech, he has demonstrated a better
knowledge of the movement. He asserted not being mason and he has identified
the masonry to a part of Babylon the Great of which it was necessary to
deviate (Apocalypse 18 4) . One can not conclude that Russell was a
freemason by his writings.

Opposing views: http://www.microtec.net/mleblank/

Explanations on the conspiracy's theory and Fritz Springmeier:
http://www.multimania.com/xmd/






chasson [ Profile Above ] Re: The Russell/Mason debate Nov 19, 2001 17:42

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---- For free: Russell: An unoticed Mason ?



According to proponents of Russell’s membership in freemasonry, the
Russells, father and son, would have been particularly prominent Masons, the
proof being that Russell would have built up a para-Masonic organization in
order to support the claimed purpose of freemasonry: a plot to destroy
Christianity.

In support of their thesis, however, these proponents cannot produce a
single Masonic document proving the father and son’s Masonic membership.
They take refuge behind their belief that because Masonic works are
secretive, it is impossible to find anything at all. Therefore, they use
indirect “proofs”: the use of famous Masonic symbols, the fact that the
first Bible Students organized public meetings in Masonic temples, etc. ...

There are numerous history books about Masonry which explain in detail the
functioning of a Masonic hall, give the names of the main officers, even
sometimes a list of all the members.

Allegheny County [PA], where Russell lived and organized his movement until
1909, also has its own books dealing with the local history of its Masons.
If Russell had been a prominent member of this lodge, one would think that
he could have left some traces in the records of the community.

The following book is about Allegheny’s Masonic Fund Society which oversaw
the construction and maintenance of the city’s Masonic Temple:

“The history of the Masonic Fund Society for the county of Allegheny from
the year 1847 to 1923; with biographical sketches of deceased members of the
Board of Trustees ...” / by Hiram Schock, Pittsburgh, PA : 1923

You will find it on the net at this link
http://digital.library.pitt.edu/cgi-bin/pitttext-idx.pl?notisid=00hc0513m&ty
pe=header

Besides the construction of the various temples over the years (1911, 1845,
1889, 1914), it describes the daily managment of these temples and supplies
the names of the various Masons in charge at the time.

It can be immediately stated that at no time is any member of Russell’s
family mentioned in the account. If the Russells, father and son, were
Masons, they were only obscure members, not prominent masons in this city.
Neither of these two men were considered worthy of being mentioned, not even
a single line written about them.

So let’s consider an often raised point:

Because Russell gave speeches in Masonic Temples, it must be that he came to
visit his Masonic brothers at the same time he came to deliver speeches to
the public.

In fact, the history of the Allegheny Temple paints a different picture: in
an effort to cover the costs of maintaining and renovating their temples,
Masons rented out a room in their temple for public meetings, whether it be
religious groups (YMCA, Baptist), plays or concerts.

On page 126 of the abovementioned document, for example, the author states:

“It is interesting to note the continued popularity of the Auditorium, or
‘Concert Hall’ of the Masonic Hall during that era as a gathering place for
the meetings of a variety of organizations.”

On this same page, it is explained that the masons would rent the room daily
to the local YMCA.

In the course of the book, other groups are shown to have used the Masonic
Temple as a place of meeting:

Page 125: The Second Baptist Church rented the room for its religious
meetings Page 133: concerts and charity meetings of the ladies of Trinity
Episcopal Church Page 146: Here we learn that before the construction of the
Opera house, the Masonic Temple was the most popular cultural venue for
theater performances and public discourses.

So here is the reason why Russell gave his speeches in this kind of place:
the Masons rented their room to balance the books and pay for the overhead
costs.

The book also contains a small error made by Springmeier, amateur conspiracy
author, which error’s importance will be explained below:

There is no lodge number 223 in Pittsburgh, although there is one in
Allegheny.

At a French Springmeier-like site
http://www.microtec.net/mleblank/occulte/demasquons.html) it says:

“But then, did his father also belong to a lodge? In fact, his father was a
master mason of Lodge No. 223 of Pittsburgh, on Jefferson Street, and of the
Mizpah Lodge No. 288 in Allegheny. These lodges were in close proximity to
his business. And it is likely that it was in one of these lodges that young
Charles was “initiated” into that which we would like all to know.”

The Mizpah Lodge seems to have existed by 1913. But in 1897 it was not
called Mizpah, but rather Jefferson Lodge at least that’s what one must
conclude as there existed a Lodge No. 288. By 1913, Russell had already left
Allegheny, and we do not know when Russell’s father died. But if Russell or
his father belonged to Lodge 288, it was not called Mizpah.

Here is a complete listing of all the Masonic Lodges in 1897, which you can
verify for yourself
http://digital.library.pitt.edu/cgi-bin/pitt/viewitem.stable/00aee6163m/v000
0/i000/0162a054.tif?main=http%3a%2f%2fdigital.library.pitt.edu%2fpittsburgh%
2f%&cite=%2fcgi-bin#2fpitttext-idx.pl%3fnotisid%3d00aee6163m$26type3dheader&
config=pitt&booknotis=00aee


Why is the identification of Lodge 223 so important? Because of this
ftp://ftp:rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb/pa/allegheny/xmisc/lodge.txt

This is the list of members of Lodge No. 223 of Allegheny in 1874. At this
time, Russell’s father is still alive and is supposed to be an active mason
in this same lodge as Mr. Leblanc’s site asserts. But there is no Russell on
this list in 1874. And in 1874 young Mr. Russell does not seem to have been
initiated.

This is only a small look at what you can find in all the digitalized City
of Pittsburgh archives
http://digital.library.pitt.edu/pittsburgh/mainpage.html

Try a search there for “Joseph Russell,” in two days I did not find
anything. And for “Charles Taze Russell?” I haven’t found anything yet, but
I’m still searching. Nevertheless by making your own searches, you will find
an incalculable number of biographies of prominent people in Pittsburgh and
even in all of Allegheny County. In every biography, you will find that the
Masonic membership of the person is highlighted as well as the Lodge to
which he belonged.

If Russell was a Mason, he was not really recognized by his peers who forgot
to mention it. In the same way, in the history of the city and the country,
the Russells, father and son, did not stand out.

So, Russell an unnoticed mason? Maybe not a mason at all.

Thanks to Outnfree for the translation

---