Russell; an unoticed freemason ?

by chasson 27 Replies latest jw friends

  • chasson
    chasson

    Russell an unnoticed freemason ?

    According to the partisans of Russell's membership of the freemasonry, the Russells, father and son, would have been particularly important masons, proves by the fact that Russell would have build an masonic organization to realize the claimed purpose of the the freemasonry: A plot to destroy Christianity.

    Obviously in support of their thesis, these partisans do not bring any masonic document proving the membership of the Father and the son to the masonry. They take refuge behind their faith that the masonic’s works are secret so it is impossible to find something. From then on, they use indirect "proofs": the use of emblems renowned only masonic, the fact that the first students of the Bible organized public meetings in temple masonic, etc. …

    There are numerous books of history on the masonry which explain in the detail the functioning of a masonic hall and give the names of the main responsibles and sometimes the list of all the members.

    Allegheny's county, county where Russell lived and organized its movement until 1909, has also its own books treating the history of the local masonry. If Russell had been a prominent member of this masonry, one can think that there were some tracks of him in the life of this community.

    Here is a book talking about Allegheny's masonic fund society charged of the construction, and the maintenance of the masonic temple of the city:

    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 atthis link:

    http://digital.library.pitt.edu/cgi-bin/pitttext-idx.pl?notisid=00hc05183m&type=header

    Besides the construction of the various temples during times ( 1811,1845,1889,1914 ), it describes the dayly management of these temples and supplies the names of the various mason responsibles for this time.

    Without waiting much longer for the readers, let us say at once: At any moment any member of the Russell’s family is quoted. If Russells, fathers and son, were mason, they were only rank and file, not important masons of this city. None of these two man were considered deserving being mentioned, even a line.

    It is a question now of talking about an often lifted(raised) point:

    Russell has given speeches in Temples masonic, so it was in fact that he came to visit his mason brothers at the same time as he came to give speeches for the public.


    In fact, the history of the temple of Allegheny show another picture: in effort to cover the loads resulting in maintenance and renovation of a temple, the masons rented a room in their temple for public meetings, religious movements (YMCA, Baptist), plays or concerts.

    In the page 126 of this document for example, the author declares:

    "It is interesting to note at this time the evidences of the continued popularity of the Auditorium, or "Concert Room" of the masonic Hall as a place convenient for the meeting of various organisation”

    On this same page, it is explained that the masons will rent their room every day of the week to the local YMCA.

    In the course of the book, other movements are evoked as using the masonic Temple as place of meeting:

    Page 125: The second Church Baptist rented the room for its religious meetings
    Page 133: concerts and the meetings of charity of the ladies of the Episcopal Church of the Trinity
    Page 146: Here, we learn that before the construction of the Opera, the masonic temple was the most appreciated cultural place where happened all the theatre performances and the public readings.

    Here is so, the reason why Russell gave his speeches in this kind of room: the masons rented their room to pay their loads.

    Let us note now another absence: the period which covers the book extends 1847's to 1923. At any moment is reported any donation of ground or even a sale made by Russell to the local masonry, while the functioning of the Masonic found Society which administers the real estates of the masonry is the main subject of this book.


    The book shows also to find a small error of the author amateur of plot, Springmeier, but which will have its importance below:

    There is no lodge number 223 in Pittsburgh, but there is one of it in Allegheny.

    This French Springmeier’s like site says (http: // www.microtec.net/mleblank/occulte/demas quons.html)

    " But then, did his father frequent also lodeg? Effectively, her father was a mason both of the lodge n ° 223 of Pittsburgh, on Jefferson Street, and the lodge Mizpah n ° 288, of Allegheny. These lodge were moreover in the close neighborhood of his business. And it is as well in one of these lodge that the young Charles " will be Introduced " to what we look for all to know "

    On the other hand, The lodge Mizpah seems existed in 1913. But in 1897 it is not called Mizpah but Jefferson Lodge. In 1913, Russell has already left Allegheny, for his) father it would be necessary to know when he died, if Russell or his father belonged to the lodge 288, it was not called Mizpah.

    Here is a complete masonic list of all the lodge in 1897, you can verify by yourself:

    http://digital.library.pitt.edu/cgi-bin/pitt/viewitem.stable/00aee6163m/v0000/i000/0162a054.tif?main=http%3a%2f%2fdigital.library.pitt.edu%2fpittsburgh%2f&cite=%2fcgi-bin%2fpitttext-idx.pl%3fnotisid%3d00aee6163m%26type%3dheader&config=pitt&booknotis=00aee

    Why the identification of the lodge 223 is so important? Look:

    ftp://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb/pa/allegheny/xmisc/lodge.txt


    This is the list of the members of the lodge number 223 of Allegheny in 1874, at this date, the father of Russell is still alive and is supposed to be an active mason in this same lodge as asserts it mister Leblanc's site. There is no Russell in this list in 1874. On the other hand in 1874, Russell’s son does not seem to be introduced neither.

    This is only a small outline of what you can find in all the archives digitalized by the city of Pittsburgh:

    http://digital.library.pitt.edu/pittsburgh/mainpage.html

    Try now to search “Joseph Russell”, in two days I did not find anything. And now “Charles Taze Russell”, I did not again find anything but i’m still searching. Nevertheless by making your own searchs, you will find an incalculable number of biographies of important people of the city of Pittsburgh and even in all the county of allegheny, in every biography, you will find that the membership in masonry of the person is brightly write and in what lodge he belonged to.

    If Russell was mason, he was not really recognized by his peers who forgot to speak about it, in the same way, even in the history of the city and the County, Russells father and son did not stand out the history of their city.

    Then Russell an unnoticed mason? Maybe not a mason at all.

  • chasson
    chasson

    bring to the top

  • teejay
    teejay

    Nice work, Chasson.

    If Russells, fathers and son, were mason, they were only rank and file, not
    important masons of this city. None of these two man were considered
    deserving being mentioned, even a line.

    This is the list of the members of the lodge number 223 of Allegheny in
    1874, at this date, the father of Russell is still alive and is supposed to be an
    active mason in this same lodge as asserts it mister Leblanc's site. There is
    no Russell in this list in 1874. On the other hand in 1874, Russell?s son does
    not seem to be introduced neither.

    If Russell was mason, he was not really recognized by his peers who forgot
    to speak about it, in the same way, even in the history of the city and the
    County, Russells father and son did not stand out the history of their city.

    Then Russell an unnoticed mason? Maybe not a mason at all.

    I happened to be thumbing through the pages here and came across this
    thread of yours. It was a good thing I did. Reading for oneself is always the
    best when forming opinions about what someone said or didn't say.

    Yesterday, someone seemed to indicate that your research had led you
    to a definitive conclusion. They said, "... Chasson ... researched
    Masonic history in the Pittsburgh area, and he uncovered nothing
    which would indicate Russell or his father were Masons." While that
    statement is true, it leaves open the possibility that they WERE, a
    conclusion I thought impossible based on the statement I read
    yesterday that referenced your work. It doesn't matter to me one way
    or the other, but I appreciate your research just the same. Thanks.

    tj

  • larc
    larc

    I recently went to a Mason site and they said that Russell was not a Mason. They pointed out that the WT speaks negatively about Free Masonry which gives further evidence that he was not a member.

    Some have pointed out that Joseph Smith founder of the Mormans was a Mason. However, the Mason site points out that he was thrown out of the Masons for misconduct. Shortly after this, Joseph Smith was killed and the Mormans blamed this on the Masons. Brigham Young the successor of Joseph Smith was not a Mason forbade church members from joining. The bad blood cut both ways. The Masons did not accept Mormans as members from 1844 til 1984.

    Therefore, the goofy sites that claim that Masonry, Mormans, and JWs are a connected part of some illuminati conspiracy, are just a pile of rubbish.

  • teejay
    teejay

    I recently went to a Mason site and they said that Russell was not a Mason.
    They pointed out that the WT speaks negatively about Free Masonry which
    gives further evidence that he was not a member.

    Good afternoon, Larc.

    Good point, I guess, but we know that Russell did practice a lot of
    things that the current leadership denounces, e.g. celebrating holidays, etc.
    The fact that the Wt is negative about it NOW doesn't mean that Russell
    didn't participate THEN.

    tj

  • MadApostate
    MadApostate

    TJ:

    Here is yesterday's exchange just for the record. Sorry that my comment about Chasson's research didn't indicate that he had not time-traveled back to the 1870s.

    *********************************

    The "cause" is dissemination of
    TRUTH about "the troooth".

    The only "connection" (and it isn't technically a connection), between Russell and the Masons is that both had/have interests in the Egyptian Pyramids. Russell was one of the most prominent "pyramidologists", with other prominent "pyramidologists" (Morton Edgar) also being Watchtower Society Officers.

    The Masons' history and ideology also include stuff about the Egyptian pyramids.

    Since both groups have used Egyptian icons/symbols, some conspiratists have tried to say that Russell's source of such was the Masons, when in fact, the two groups are using the same source- Egyptology.

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

    teejay
    Master Member
    Posts: 677
    Since: Mar 1, 2001
    Re: Judah Ben SchroederAug 18, 2001 12:05:39 PM

    So... there's NO connection between Russell and the Masons (other than their similar history/interest in pyramidology)?

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

    MadApostate
    Senior Member
    Unites States of America
    Posts: 162
    Since: Jul 24, 2001
    Re: Judah Ben SchroederAug 18, 2001 3:42:54 PM

    TJ:

    I'm not sure what you are asking??? Are you looking to argue semantics- ie the meaning of the word "connection"?

    Who knows, Russell probably slept in a hotel owned by a Mason, traveled in a taxi driven by a Mason, wore a suit tailored by a Mason???

    Other, than the common denominator of Egyptian icons/symbols used by both Russell and Masonry, I know of no other meaningful info.

    Yesterday, there was a very good post by Chasson(?), who had researched Masonic history in the Pittsburgh area, and he uncovered nothing which would indicate Russell or his father were Masons. Take a look.

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

    teejay
    Master Member
    Posts: 677
    Since: Mar 1, 2001
    Re: Judah Ben SchroederAug 18, 2001 5:21:02 PM

    MadApostate,

    I'm not sure what you are asking??? Are you looking to argue semantics- ie the meaning of the word "connection"?

    No, MA, I do not argue semantics.

    I was under the impression that Russell may have been 'connected' with Masonry in the sense of having studied with or been a member of - , that's all. I got that impression from a cursory research on some of the exjw sites. I may have mentioned: I don't care either way, just curious. I know all *I* will ever need to know about Russell, Rutherford, Knorr, etal.
    When you said, "Chasson had researched Masonic history in the Pittsburgh area and uncovered nothing which would indicate Russell or his father were Masons," that was all I needed to hear. That was the 'connection' I was asking about. As far as you know, Russell was never a Mason.

    Thank you.
    peace,
    tj

  • MadApostate
    MadApostate

    After reading your last post, I see you are NOW misinterpreting Larc's comment regarding "negative comments by the Watchtower.

    What Larc is indicating is that Russell spoke negatively about Masonry in the Watchtower several times over the years. Also, in the 1913 Convention Report, which is constantly misquoted by conspiratists, Russell flat out said he had never been a Mason.

    GET IT! RUSSELL WAS NOT A MASON!!!

  • teejay
    teejay

    I'm sorry MadApostate. Gee, I wonder how you got your first name?

    What Larc is indicating is that Russell spoke negatively about Masonry in
    the Watchtower several times over the years. Also, in the 1913 Convention
    Report, which is constantly misquoted by conspiratists, Russell flat out said
    he had never been a Mason.

    Cool.

    I thought Larc meant that the current leadership spoke negatively about
    Masonry. Not a 'misinterpretation' but a simple misunderstanding. Huge
    difference. I do recall seeing a jpeg image of an article or two (don't
    remember where... maybe Randy's site) where Russell spoke of "his Masonic
    brothers" or something like that.

    As far him admitting point blank that he had never been a Mason, well... I'll
    take that for what it's worth, if you don't mind. Russell said a lot of things, as
    you are no doubt aware, and nearing the end of 'his earthly course' he may
    have begun to live under the delusion that he was the faithful and wise
    servant, making him beyond accountability, like say, the present day faithful
    and discreet slave. If it's all the same to you, I will base my opinion on more
    than what he said he was/n't.

    GET IT! RUSSELL WAS NOT A MASON!!!

    Cool.

    Like I said, and I mean as much now as ever, it doesn't matter to me one
    way or the other if he was or wasn't. It's just that I've read Russell's
    connection with Masonry both ways and didn't realize there was a definitive
    answer one way or the other. Hmmm, that's funny... I still don't
    see one! Nothing's changed, even considering Chasson's excellent research.
    However, it seems to me that it's important TO YOU that the word gets out
    that Russell was not a Mason (or am I misinterpreting again?). What's the
    big deal? Sheesh!

    Sorry that my comment about Chasson's research didn't indicate that
    he had not time-traveled back to the 1870s.
    Me, too. It might've
    cleared up some of the confusion(?).

    peace,
    tj

  • chasson
    chasson
    a conclusion I thought impossible based on the statement I read
    yesterday that referenced your work. It doesn't matter to me one way
    or the other, but I appreciate your research just the same. Thanks.

    I think so, but i don't want to be conclusive. I would appreciate some info about the financial's evolution of the Russell's family.

    Springmeier knowed when he wrote his book that Russell was not really a particular important people in Pittsburgh. So he had tried to say that during the 1880's Russell has a particular average of many comming from the illuminatis.

    Evidently, Springmeier didn't prove anything of what he said. And someone who lived near Pittsburgh who could exhumate in other pittsburgh's archive would be appreciate.

    What i have proved is before 1874, Russell father and son were not mason. After that, they didn(t let any tracks in the masonic's book of the history of the masonry of pittsburgh,even in the lodge number 223 or 288, not called before 1887, the mizpah (watchtower in hebrew according to springmeier) lodge.

    I can't prove that Russell didn't owned the United (not union) cimetery. But in fact, there is a book in the collection which explain the constitution of this kind of cimetery in Pittsburgh but it don't speack of this one.

    I can prove easily that the masonic temple near the Russell's gravestone was build 80 years after the death of Russell, that the plot was not donate to the masonry by russell or the watchtower but was buyed by the masonry in 1995.

    The more i work on the springmeier's works the more i found it stupid, but i have not a definitely prove.

    Bye

    Charles

  • MadApostate
    MadApostate

    TJ:

    I consider the "truth" about this and every other JW-related issue to be EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, because OBVIOUS HORSESHIT like "Russell was a Mason" only serves the WTS's objective of painting XJWs as NUTS and LIARS.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit