Thanks avenger!
Seems there is no question now. It's pretty clear here. And I see no spin on it as Russell declares himself.
Love ya, sKally
Charles T Russell -a freemason and the connection to the illuminati...
by dolphman 169 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Corvin
I have changed my opinion as to whether or not Russell was a freemason. I agree there is no nail in the coffin proof that he was a freemason. But there is PLENTY of evidence to suggest he was, was lying to hide his membership, or at the very least was affiliated and influenced by them to a serious degree. Tell you what, add up the sheer amount of evidence that says he was affiliated with freemasons and compare it to the total amount of evidence the says he wasn't. If you weigh them out on scales, I think it invariably tilts in favor of him being one, or at least associated to a serious degree.
Russells only affiliation with the Free Masons was that he was selling books to the organization and his little speech about also being a Free Mason amounts to me giving a speech declaring that "we are all brothers and sisters" when it comes right down to it. It is more philosophical than literal.
The only real nail in the coffin would be the record of his membership. As I am given to understand, careful records of all Masons are kept and maintained and there isn't any record of such a membership in Russell's case. I guess his application and membership records were destroyed along with GW Bush's military records. Remember, Russell wanted to be the leader of followers, not the follower of a leader.
Corvin
-
TD
Corvin,
Russells only affiliation with the Free Masons was that he was selling books to the organization and his little speech about also being a Free Mason amounts to me giving a speech declaring that "we are all brothers and sisters" when it comes right down to it. It is more philosophical than literal.
I agree
Russell was simply giving new life to an old name.
The ?Free? in Freemasonry derives from the fact that skilled architects and tradesmen (principally stonemasons) in the Middle Ages were a privileged class when compared to the common serfs and as a result, enjoyed a freedom of travel that the serfs did not. But by the 1700?s the ?Free? in Freemasonry had lost most of its meaning, as the Accepted Masons by this point outnumbered the tradesmen themselves.
Russell took the opportunity of speaking in a Masonic hall, to reinvent this old name by spiritualizing it. To his credit, Russell was clear about his intentions when he said:
?Now I am a free and accepted Mason. I trust we all are. But not just after the style of our Masonic brethren. We have no quarrel with them.?
Russell was therefore completely open and honest about the fact that he was going to be using the term in a different sense than the Freemasons themselves do. He went on to explain this in several pages worth of detail in fact.
First, he considered himself ?Free? in the sense of being a redeemed Christian. The ?Free? was freedom from sin. Second, he considered all true Christians ?Masons? in the sense that they share in the building of the spiritual temple as living stones.Therefore Russell used the term ?Free Mason? (two words) as something new and different from ?Freemason? (one word) Russell was promoting a religion. (His own) This is entirely distinct from Freemasonry as a fraternal order. In other words, neither the ?Free? nor the ?Mason? meant the same things to Russell that they do to the Masons.
Jehovah?s Witnesses still love this subtle play on word definitions as we all know.
-
sf
... and was a newspaper writer and editor from 1890 ... order of things on earth" in "His millennial kingdom.". ... Masonic Symbolism within the Cults of Jehovah's Witnesses ...
www.geocities.com/endtimedeception/templar.htm - 19k - Cached - Similar pagesJwclass1
... A reporter from the Eagle newspaper sailed on the same boat as Russell and gave the 'real' news of Mr Russells supposed ... Kingdom of the Cults, Walter Martin ...
www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/6528/JW1.HTM - 24k - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from www.geocities.com ] -
dolphman
You know, what I find hard to accept and even harder to understand is how someone can pick apart a particulair speech or say the crown and cross are symbols of christianity and then make a blanket statement that this one piece of evidence proves inconclusively that Russell was NOT and in no way associated with freemasonry. How ignorant. The perponderance of circumstantial evidence COMBINDED TOGETHER must certainly get someone's attention, shouldn't it?
Are the egyptian symbols used by Russell Christian in origin too?
Does the pyramid Russell is buried under honestly supposed to represent the Trinity?
Is it just a coincidence that words such as Watchtower/Golden Dawn happen to be prevalant in Masonic lingo?If I'm not mistaken members of Russell's family were Masons, and Russell was also known to associate with prominent Rosicrutians.
For me, the evidence COMBINED points to a connection of some degree. One piece of evidence in and of itself obviously can't be conclusive, but an very obvious pattern of influence emerges when the totality of everything in question is added up. Hence, this is why it is still possible to get a conviction in a court of law on circumstancial evidence alone. Although it's obviously much tougher to prove.
The only real nail in the coffin would be the record of his membership
Hmmmm. True, of course, we are dealing with a secret society here, something readily admitted to by Masons themselves.
-
talesin
Dolphman,
I join you in your way of thinking. It's good to find that I have a common ground with yet another poster, that I may disagree with politically. It's good to get off those threads sometimes, huh? Often, we see a whole other side of people. :)
A general comment about the pooh-poohing of so-called 'conspiracy theory adherents'.
If there is a high-level conspiracy, it would be hidden, no? Therefore, it's easy to ask for concrete proof, ie. records from 'secret societies' and high-level government agencies, because you know the 'theorists' may never be able to obtain them.
In my opinion, it's a Mexican stand-off. Neither side has sufficient information to prove or disprove beyond a shadow of a doubt. On this subject, as with many others, I examine all the information provided, then go on my gut and the personal knowledge I possess.
-
gitasatsangha
Thank you for bringing a spirit of equanimity and reason to this, Talesin.
-
talesin
Oh, thank you, Gita. :)
I try to see the world in shades of grey, tks.
-
Kenneson
Dolphman,
Yes, Masons are a secret society, but not so secret as to not keep membership rosters. We have volumes and volumes of them at the State Library where I am a volunteer.
-
TD
I tend to view it as a matter of perception rather than a matter of ?ignorance? on anyone?s part. Some here seem to favor the gestalt perceptual model and some favor simple reductionism. I freely admit that I fall into the latter camp, maybe because of my experience with the JW?s.
To me the whole JW belief system ?hovers in the air.? Each teaching both is propped up by and props up other teachings in one huge circle, and no single teaching ever actually ?touches the ground? as it were. Therefore although it?s tantalizing, it's not satisfying because no single element can ever actually be tested.
In the same vein, I have a hard time when arguments take this form and the wheels never actually seem to meet the road. They're sometimes interesting, but there's never any element of finality. It?s true that a case can be made on circumstantial evidence alone, but this doesn?t mean that each individual circumstance is not individually examined one at a time in minute detail. If they aren?t unique or if they crumble upon close examination, then the case founders.
When it comes to Russell and Freemasonry, I wonder if it could be shown one way or the other if his terminology was out of place in its historical context? I don't believe his fascination with pyramids actually was out of place --no more so than the present day fascination with hidden numerical codes in the Bible.