I find this on unother board and i think it proof realy good that russel dont was a Mason.
"There is no evidence that the 1913 discourse was an attempt to lay an issue at rest. There is no evidence that it was
thought that Russell was a Mason at the time. If Russell wanted to lay an issue at rest the talk would have apperared in
The Watch Tower. Russell certainly did not write a book called "The Temple". Your suggesting that he did indicates to
me that you rely entirely on secondary material and have not examined Russell´s writings carefully yourself. By the way I
gave the wrong date for his talk - my memory served me wrong. Actually the talk was given on Monday, June 16,
1913. Russell was on a tour in the West. He had given a talk in San Diego on June 14 and another one in Santa Ana on
June 15. He travelled to Portland, Oregon on June 17. There was a three days convention in San Fransisco and the hall
that was rented was owned by the Masons. This fact and nothing else seems to be the reason for his talk on "The
Temple of God". Renting masonic halls was not uncommon as such sometimes were the best halls, if not the only ones,
available. In Sweden to this day a number of masonic halls are rented by the public for all kinds of activities, simply
because they are good halls. Russell would talk to all kinds of audiences trying to spread his message and in doing so
trying to reason from the listeners´ perspective. Now my friend, Russell specifically DENIED ever having been a Mason
in his talk aimed at the Masons. He did not admit that he was one or had been one. Make sure you have what Russell
actually said and did not say!
I understand you did not mean "three worlds" to refer to the three world wars you say were written about by Pike.
However, Russell still did not relate to what Pike may have stated. And his knowledge in advance was very deficient to
say the least. If you had read what Russell wrote on world conditions in every issue of his journal, you would see for
yourself that Russell´s views were based on anything but secret conspiracies.
I mentioned Voltaire because he was an antisemite connected with Weisshaupt. The Rothschilds in Frankfurt were not
atheists but supporters of the ORTHODOX movement challenging the liberal one that held sway. In the end they won!
It is difficult to imagine that the Rothscilds should further a cause that was so foreign to the Jewish thinking of their
Rabbis and antisemitic at that! And The Rothschilds had not risen to any particular prominence when Weishaupt was
living, so he could hardly rely on them or draw them into any conspiracy. But I will certainly do careful research on the
Rothschilds, which I had planned to do for other reasons anyway. I surely fail to see, anyway, why the zionist
movement must be part of a conspiracy. And Russell was but one of many who was interested in zionism at the time. If
you have not read ARMAGEDDON NOW! by Dwight Wilson (1991) you will find lots of relevant information in it.
It was Russell´s sister Margaret Russell Land who stated in 1907 (documented!) that she, Charles Taze, their father and
others were baptized in 1874. For young Charles this would hardly be necessary if his religious activities were merely a
fasade for his true dedication to a secret conspiracy. For as a child he must have been "baptized", being born into a
presbyterian family. Margaret says Russell was 17 when his eyes were "anointed" By God. No angelic visits mentioned
anywhere. Since Russell was only 24 years old when he met Barbour he certainly could not have known of a
conspiracy "several decades" previously. That would have been before his birth!
I also want to comment on the date of his death, October 31. You indicate that the fact that this was Halloween was
significant. But people seldom choose the day they die, do they? If he had died on good Friday, would that had made
Russell more palatable? Lots of people die on October 31.
Russell did not arrange for a pyramid to stand on the Society´s burial ground. It is not mentioned in his Will. It was not
built until a few years later, which would be unthinkable if it had been his idea.
Russell consistently wrote against Christians supporting the Masons and other secret orders. The most natural
explanation is that he meant what he wrote and that, hence, he was not a mason, just as he at least twice stated he had
never been. To this day the Society is opposed to membership of secret lodges. There are example of this given in the
literature and I personally know one case myself. A successful saleman I know had to give up all ties to the Odd
Fellows before he could be accepted for baptism. He made a deal with his former friends that he would never reveal
what he had experienced and he says he would not dare to do so.
It was good that you expanded on what you consider evidence for Russell´s secret agenda. I will check on it, but
without SOLID PROOF from some letter or membership lists what you state remains unconvincing.
I may write you directly. It seems nobody else will enter the discussions anyway."
If you will read more of this go to canal C and read the disscussion beetwen Rud Persson and Fat jack.