by kid-A 118 Replies latest jw friends
Talesin
Still wondering why Russell would refer to his being a free___mason,,, was he a bricklayer?
LOL, Russell was haberdasher turned theologion, not a bricklayer.
Russell co-opted the terms for his own ends. "Free" was used in the sense of freedom from the condemnation of sin. "Mason" was used to mean a "living stone" in the temple of God (1 Peter 2:4)
Don't feel too bad. I used to think this, too. As I looked deeper, I realized that the evidence is quite weak. The statement that he was a Freemason cannot be made as an established fact.
Umm... does it really matter anyway? He was at worst a misguided man who founded a cult and then allowed a drunken lawyer to take control after he died because he didnt prepare properly and legally. If he was a mason, freemason.. whatever is irrelevant to me.
TD
Excellent, I'm glad you get my humour, and didn't take offense. :D
Ah, now, we are getting to the crux of my query.
"Mason" was used to mean a "living stone" in the temple of God (1 Peter 2:4)
Accepted on your word. But was this the common vernacular of the day, or is it Masonic terminology? And if it is not the common usage but rather one used by the 'brotherhood', why would Russell choose to use it?
tal
Hi Talesin,
But was this the common vernacular of the day, or is it Masonic terminology?
It wasn't really either.
"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.
Russell took the opportunity of speaking in a Masonic hall to reinvent this old name by spiritualizing it.
TD
Thanks for the reasoned reply. It is one of my few questions, that I could never ask anyone here, as I did not want to be belittled. I know where the term 'freemason' originates (yes I have done much reading on the Masons, as my family was involved in them until recent generations), but still find it curious that Russell used that specific language unless he was a FreeMason himself. However, if he is speaking to a bunch of that 'club', I guess it would make sense (?).
I remain, skeptically yours,,,
tal
I too have done research on this and I agree with the comment above by JWFacts. There are clear masonic influences and imagary, not least the obsession with Egyptology.
The more important issue for me is that mentioned by others on this thread - why would God, in 1919 (Rutherford's tenure, not Russell's) choose an occultic organisation as his own - the only true religion? This Egyptology was some of the spiritual food allegedly inspected. Watchtower published for decades that the Great Pyramid was designed by Jehovah, then switched this to Satan, but the new light came from Carter's discovery of Tutankhamun's tomb intact, not new light from the FDS!
Yes, long after Russell's death, the inventor of this newly named religion (Jehovah's Witnesses) was still publishing denials that the pyramids were anything other than stone witnesses designed by Jehovah himself. Long after the Watchtower's supposed appointment as the FDS in 1919, JWs still ridiculed Christians and secular experts alike who believed the Great Pyramid had nothing to do with God and his Son, but merely a burial chamber for Pharoah's who worshiped pagan Gods. Who was right, the Watchtower or Christian religions? Who gets the best information from God?
Could Jehovah's organisation be the only religion among Christians to get such an important teaching so wrong? I would ask JWs and their apologists - where is the evidence for appointment as the FDS? Even the JWs on this board never respond to such questions, sadly.
I read the link to Danny Haszard's page .
The occasion seems to be a public talk delivered in a masonic hall. Just as they might do today, Russell takes the theme of Masonry as a running illustration . Perhaps there were a lot of Masons in the audience ? He paralells Masonry and the "masonry" of the spiritual temple ( a rather weak analagy IMHO, but there you go) He often refers to "Our masonic friends" in the third person . Page 122 of the reproduced book says ;
Although I have never been a Mason , I have heard that in Masonry they have something which very closely resembles all of this. It is riding on the goat etc.And the Bible calls for the goat , you know.The Bible tells you that your goat which you have to ride more or less every day, is your own flesh . Our Masonic friends have it down very fine. I do not know where they got it so well.........
I think there are some questions to be answered about Russells use of images and his memorial stone, but this shows he emphatically denied ever having been a mason
It would be interesting to compare the evidence for Russell's putative Masonic membership with that of Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormons, who did not keep his status a secret and we know from contemporary sources that he was initiated on 15-16 March 1842, with a full endowment ceremony on 4 May 1842. See Mervin B. Hogan, Mormonism and Freemasonry: The Illinois Episode (Salt Lake City: Campus Graphics, 1980). Smith's Masonic status -- and his subsequent changes to church order to reflect Masonic practices -- was a subject of controversy in the church in the 1840s.
Such information is absent in the case of Russell. Although he appropriates Masonic symbols and concepts in his literature, this is not the same thing as being a degreed member. In at least one text he expressed an anti-Masonic attitude:
***ZWT, 15 June 1895, pp. 143***We note also that the Order of Free Masons, if judged by its past history, has some secret object or scheme, more than fraternity and financial aid in time of sickness or death. And, so far as we can judge, there is a certain amount of profane worship or mummery connected with the rites of this order and some others, which the members do not comprehend, but which, in many cases, serves to satisfy the cravings of the natural mind for worship, and thus hinders it from seeking the worship of God in spirit and in truth--through Christ, the only appointed Mediator and Grand Master.
Here he expresses a dislike of the "profane" rites of the Freemasons and suspects "some secret object or scheme", and yet he appropriates a Masonic term "Grand Master" to refer to something greater than Freemasonry.
It should also be borne in mind that the use of Egyptian symbols and pyramidology is not ipso facto evidence of Masonic membership or even Masonic influence. What tends to be overlooked is that "all things Egyptian" were all the rage in popular culture in the latter half of the 19th century....Egyptianizing jewlery, art, etc. (often directly copying motifs from archaeological discoveries in the mid-1800s) were found throughout American and European society.
Has anyone done research on the possibility that Charles Russell was a Knights Templer? I do find the pyramid at his gravesite to be almost overwhelming evidence that he was connected to one of these societies. When you look at the language that is used within these groups...outstanding among them being watchtower, society, new world order, etc. it just seems too closely connected not to be justified. Why would he use all the same terminology in starting this organization with that which is/was so connected to Masonry? If you do research on Masons, Knights Templer, and then read through Studies in the Scriptures, it is mind-blowing to see the symbols and termonology used!
Russell was supposedly involved with a young woman named Rose---check and see the significance of this with the Knights Templer org.
Russell picked out the "Rosemont" cemetary to be buried in--again a symbol in the Knights Templer organization.
These names have meaning to fellow members. Too bad so much time has gone by and this was not investigated early on. Until recently, I did not know that my Grandfather, a well known witness, had been a Mason. He never talked about it. His OWN children did not know that he had been one. My grandmother told 1 of my brothers and then only briefly mentioned it. When he died my grandmother picked out a headstone and when she went back to visit the grave, Masonic emblems had been engraved on it...without her knowledge or request. No one claimed to know who did it. Those emblems are still on there to this day. Recently, I was at my parents house and they brought out his old pocket-watch. I turned it over and on the back was the Mason symbol. No one had ever known what it was...my parents were speechless! After asking around, I found out that you have to be pretty far up the ladder to get this watch. I can't find any record of his being a Mason either, but I definately know that he was.
So it would not surprise me at all if there was more to the Charles Russell story than meets the eye. It is a very secretive society and they protect their secrets at all costs.
Swalker
Umm... does it really matter anyway? He was at worst a misguided man who founded a cult and then allowed a drunken lawyer to take control after he died because he didnt prepare properly and legally. If he was a mason, freemason.. whatever is irrelevant to me.
I see your point. Unfortunatlely, this is one of those claims that the Society probably loves to see being spread around as they are out to prove that ex-members are liars and will make anything up to discredit "the truth". I just think there are so many reasons to steer clear of the organization that are based on facts other than speculation. Consider that this could be the first post someone see's on this board, or the first one that catches their eye because it's such a sensational claim. Then they go look up the facts and see that the reasoning is flawed. That's why some feel better to do their homework first. Personally, I used to throw this one out there too, and then felt foolish upon checking the evidence.
