Greetings Dolphman,
Don't misunderstand --- It's not that I wouldn't like to see proof that Russell was a Mason. As I stated previously, if anything truly new has been discovered, it would be sensational.
Check out these websites here. Could you explain the plausible alternative explanations in great detail? Really. I want to hear an honest explanation as to how Russell aboslutely had nothing to do with masonry.
Honestly; I can't prove that "Russell absolutely had nothing to do with masonry."
First: Unless I've completely misunderstood you, that's not even the issue here at all. The original assertion, made by you, is that, "Russell was a freemason." There are plausible ways that he may have had something "to do with masonry" that do not validate that original assertion. In fact, you've explicitly stated one of them yourself:
"Russell probably dabbled in a hodgepodge of different orders, collectively taking what he wanted from all of them and funnelling their ideology and symbology into the WTBTS"
Co-opting Masonic ideology and symbolism would not have required that he actually be a Mason himself, since he openly admitted that he had friends that were. I think this can be illustrated through a parallel. Penton, Jonsson and others have already documented that few, if any of Russell's major religious doctrines were not taught by others before him. The only really unique thing about Russell, was his combination of teachings. For example, Russell, had friends and associates who were Second Adventists and he borrowed among other things, the concept of an invisible Parousia from a group headed by Barbour, but was never actually a Second Adventist himself. The precedent is therefore already in place.
In view of the fact that Russell was given to this mode of operation, it is certainly plausible that he may have borrowed "ideology and symbology" from Masonry, but this in and of itself does not factually establish that he at any point was a Mason.
Second: Instead of actually proving the assertion, you are instead asking that it be disproved. This is the fallacy of shifting burden of proof. You're the claimant here. You're the one that must needs present a connected series of statements in the establishment of your original assertion. You've presented links to websites, that you obviously consider evidential, but you've not presented an argument.
Further, proving a negative, which is what you're essentially asking for, is a logical fallacy in its own rite. I can't prove a negative. Nobody can. It's for precisely this reason that I've already explicitly stated that, "None of us can know in absolute terms that Russell was not secretly a Freemason."
I've read through the four captioned websites, but I can neither collate nor prioritize your evidence for you and as much as I would like to, I can't answer, "in great detail", an argument that doesn't actually seem to have been presented yet. Specifically, why do you believe Russell was a Mason? What evidence have you read that is especially compelling to you?
Until an actual argument is put forth, the most I can do is offer general comment:
#1
http://www.exjws.net/museum/masonry.htm
Appears to be affliated with Freeminds website. Two evidentiary items.
A. Photocopies of a 1913 convention report containing the discourse, "The Temple Of God." No argument presented.
Briefly, Russell refers to Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists and Masons as "friends." Russell says that he is a "Free Mason" (Two words, emphasis on 'Free') but qualifies with, "not just after the style of our Masonic brethren." (p.120) Russell goes on to explain at length what he means by these statements. All "true" Christians including Jesus himself are living stones in the heavenly temple of God. Russell seems to think this temple of God is a pyramid built from the top down with Jesus, the "great mason" as the top piece. (pp. 121-122) Russell fleshes out this illustration with a number of direct parallels to Masonry, but emphasizes throughout that what he is speaking about is heavenly. The "free" in Russell's use of the term, "Free Masonry" means freedom from sin. (p. 123) Russell explains what is required to become a "Spiritual Mason" ---It means putting on the white robe and accepting the higher calling. (p.125)
Although Russell demonstrates a familiarity with Freemasonry, I believe it would take serious reading comprehension problems to misinterpret this as a declaration of Russell's membership in or affiliation therein.
B. Eight pictures: No argument presented.
1. Cross and crown emblem on early Watch Tower
2. Bible Student (?) picture of Jesus on cross (!) (No reference)
3. Winged Sun Disk appearing on various hardbound Bible Student books
4.- 6. Queens assembly hall
7.- 8. Original Bethel burial plot marker designed by Bonet (again with cross and crown)
In addition to lack of argument, no proof is offered that any of these are Masonic symbols at all, save the unadorned claim. Not one word about who built the Queens assembly hall and when.
#2
http://www.bigwig.net/knots/nightmares/notice.htmhttp://www.premier1.net/~raines/disc.html
URL appears to link to Ken Raines, ?JW Research? website. Link is dead
#3
http://www.pnc.com.au/~fichrist/Masons.html
Australian ?Free In Christ? website. Selected excerpts and evidence from The Watchtower & The Masons by Fritz Springmeier
Here at last, we have a semblance of an argument even if it does take the form of the fallacy of bad company. ---Since Russell knew about Freemasonry, he therefore must certainly have been one. By that argument, I would be one of Jehovah?s Witnesses! (Geez what an epithet)
Predictiably, Springmeier dismisses all contrary evidence, (e.g. Russell?s many unfavorable comments about them, his demonstrable ignorance about the more esoteric aspects of Masonry, and even his overt denial of membership) with blind assertion and speculation about smokescreens. The contrary evidence is, with a little imagination, made to serve as evidence. ?Them tricky Masons!
#4
http://www.thewatcherfiles.com/bloodlines/russell.htm
This is the work of a complete whackjob. Next to this guy, The National Enquirer is a scholarly journal.
BTW, I find it funny he was buried off a street entitled Masonic Way. Again, this must be another weak circumstantial evidence that absolutely NOTHING AT ALL MASONIC can be associated with Russell.
Do you know when this street was named? ---Could it have been around the time the Masonic complex across the street was built?
Best Regards,
Tom
There is no credible evidence whatsoever that Charles Taze Russell, the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses faith, was a Mason. Some have charged that his tombstone appears as a keystone (a symbol used in Royal Arch Masonry), that there appears on the stone a crown and cross and that the stone is in the shape of a pyramid. (Those who make the claim do so for their own ends ignoring the fact that the cross and crown have long been symbols of Christianity, that the pyramid is often used in one-dimension view to represent the Trinity etc.) A review of Russell's personal life would have likely found him unwelcome within a Lodge. A current author says of him "Russell's faults as a writer were perhaps the least of his shortcomings. Accusations of sexual and financial improprieties, for example, dogged him throughout his adult life. Russell's notorious difficulties with his long-suffering wife Maria, aired during a series of sensational libel, separation, and alimony suits near the turn of the century, became a particular source of embarrassment for both the pastor and his flock. (Russell's stature couldn't have been enhanced when a Pennsylvania judge concluded that his "continual arrogant domination" of his wife was enough to "render the life of any sensitive Christian woman a burden and make her life intolerable." 3 This notwithstanding, Pastor Russell did, upon occasion, make reference to Masons. 
One internet supporter of Russell's regularly argues that Freemasonry was totally against the Preacher's philosophy but the argument he makes is based on his interpretation rather than facts. Those attempting to condemn Russell based on Masonic membership fail to produce any evidence of his membership (the name of his lodge or the names of lodges he ostensibly visited, for example) and his supporters use faulty logic in arguing against it. Russell is not mentioned in any Masonic reference works, a unique situation indeed if he were a Mason because of his notoriety.