Talk:Charles Taze Russell/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Masonry (again)

I had many links reguarding PROOF of masonry influence reguarding both Russel & JW's I dont know who took my EVIDENCE and LINKS out - but I'm just going to do a much better, bigger and far BETTER job.

I might go as far as to make a list of what the church has done to those who have campaigned against it. I am a far, far bigger voice than you'd imagine - thanks for reminding me to do things right. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.169.171.236 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 5 May 2006.

This article is not about Masonry, nor about JWs, nor about conspiracy theories. Because CT Russell's official statements are that he was never a Mason, nor knew anything about them, attempting to place anything else in the article would be considered vandalism. If you want to create a page about how JWs (and CT Russell) are supposed to have links to Freemasonry, then you may create one. But you may not vandalise this article with supposition and heresay. Pastorrussell 04:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

If there's a disagreement over this, maybe you could have it here instead of in the article, and have your links here; then maybe move it back into the main article. Sticking on facts only could probably help keep the discussion cool :) Flammifer 06:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I just wrote an article on the Cross and Crown symbol, which is one of the supposed links between Pastor Russell and masonry. Flammifer 07:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I commend you on a well written, balanced and accurate article. Thank you. As far as the Freemason issue: if it is to be addressed in the main article, there is a lot of assumption to be made. The argument has to prove two things: 1) That Freemasonry is evil or of the occult, and 2) That Pastor Russell was a Freemason. The entire argument is based upon nothing but supposition. Yet, if it is to be mentioned in the main article, it should be written in a balanced and fair manner. That would entail a brief description of the claim, perhaps with a link to some information, but also a brief description of the other side of the story, with an appropriate link, such as what appears there now with direct quotes from his pen. Pastor Russell specifically stated, word-for-word, that he was not a Mason, nor familiar with their practices, and that membership in such earthly organizations is a waste of a Christian's time. He referred to Freemasonry and other such brotherhood organizations as parts of Babylon from which the faithful Christian must flee. He condemned Theosophy as being akin to demonism, and very dangerous to the true Christian. Yet, others are trying to say that they have proof of the opposite. Such individuals are essentially trying to say that he was an outright blatant liar. Regardless of the positions taken, there should be balance, and not a three-page treatise in the main article trying to prove a point -- from either side. The claims should be well written, brief, balanced, and to the point. Pastorrussell 21:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. While researching information on the Cross and Crown, I saw many webpages saying it was a masonic symbol that they got from the medieval Templar Knights. But I never saw an ounce of evidence that the Templar Knights used that symbol (and I did find plenty of other symbols they did use), so either those webpages had access to better sources than me, or they were just parotting each other without stopping to double-check. So, I won't put much faith in anything else they have to say. I don't even think the accusations of being a mason are that noteworthy.

Maybe "something" could be said about the relationship between Pastor Russell's ideas (especially the thing about pyramids) and some other stuff at the time (I wouldn't be surprised if some early Bible Students were into Spiritualism (which doesn't seem very occult, and would often go hand-in-hand with christianity), but a bit of googling didn't bring up much). But I wouldn't go out of my way to add it to the article. Flammifer 03:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yikes, I guess you don't much about Bible Students! CTR and the Pittsburgh congregation in the 1870s were the first to introduce topical Bible study to a wider audience. (many believe they were the first, period) Many of the commonly held views in several segments of modern Protestantism were first brought forth by him, which in the context of this discussion would include the dangers of Spiritism and Spiritualism as demonism. ("What Say the Scriptures on Spiritism?") There were positively ZERO Bible Students who engaged in such practices, knowing them to be activities in violation of God's written word on the subject. On the next topic: he, and the Pittsburgh study group, believed that the books first written by Joseph Seiss and John Taylor that expanded upon the idea that the Great Pyramid was "The Bible in Stone" were truly based upon the Bible. If you read why from the appendix of "Thy Kingdom Come", with an open mind and Bible in hand, you will at the very least see why this could be true. He wasn't interested in pyramid/S/. Perhaps that is why some misunderstand the topic because in our modern day the Great Pyramid has been swiped as an occult symbol. A century ago it wasn't thought of that way by anyone. Such ideas emerged from the New Age movement and the "hippie movement" of the late 60s which adapted Eastern religions with occult beliefs and had evolved over the 20th century. Too many people who are uninformed make unfair assumptions. A study of Christian history is a good foundation to lean on. Pastorrussell 08:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I will most readily admit I don't know much about Bible Students! What I know I read from the internet.

I didn't mean to say that since Russell was interested in Pyramids, he was into occult stuff, but rather, that since in those times many things now associated with the occult (such as numerology, pyramidology ...) weren't necessarily considered so in that time, I wouldn't be surprised if he (or his followers) were associated with some things that'd seem unlikely now. A lot of things were new and exciting and "uncategorized". I can't express myself very clearly, but my general impression was that things in that time were different (The associations made between science, religion, archeology, etc. didn't map the way they do now), so I wouldn't have been surprised if Russell (or his followers) had been associated whith movements whose "descendants" are now seen on the rather occult side of things. Now, looking a bit more carefully into that Pyramid thing, I do see indeed that there's not much of a link. I also found interesting material for wikipedia, yay! I added a bit of info to the Charles Piazzi Smyth, and will add a bit to the Russell one too. (I'm not sure who associated the building of the pyramid to Melchizedek, would you know? I guess it was Smyth, but it may be Russell.) Flammifer 15:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, thank you for the link, I was quite interested in finding a reference to the Hyksos in Russell's thought, since I'd been following the Hyksos article on Wikipedia. I like those kinds of cross-topical connections :) Flammifer 15:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Russell's baptism

It was very interesting to read in the article that Russell and his father got rebaptized in 1884. Is there any written source that mentions this action? Is there any Watch Tower article that refers to this incident?

--Vassilis78 20:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The entire Russell family (which was composed of Joseph, Charles, and Margaret Mae) decided to be re-baptized in 1874, not 1884. That detail was pointed out by Margaret in a Testimony Meeting at the Chicago Convention of 1907. You can read it by going to http://www.pastor-russell.com/legacy/crs1907.pdf. Pastorrussell 22:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

   Thanks a lot--Vassilis78 18:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)==

The link mentioning Russell's 1874 rebaptism has changed...

It's now here.

Born into a Presbyterian family (?), I'd guess C.T.Russell was first "baptized" as an infant but it would be nice to see a reference either way.--AuthorityTam (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)