Focus on Charles Taze Russell

Watch Tower June 15, 1895

R1827 : page 143

In our judgment the majority of “secret societies” are merely beneficiary and have no secret schemes antagonistic to the general public welfare, the secret rites and ceremonies being merely “boys’ play,” occupying the time and attention of persons who have no greater aims than those which pertain to the present life. We note, however, that several Roman Catholic Societies seem to have schemes connected with the use of fire-arms, and are therefore to be classed as malevolent rather than benevolent.

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.

In proportion as such societies consume valuable time in foolish, senseless rites and ceremonies, and in substituting the worship of their officers, and the use of words and symbols which have no meaning to them, for the worship of God, in his appointed way — through Christ, and according to knowledge and the spirit of a sound mind — in that proportion these societies are grievous evils, regardless of the financial gains or losses connected with membership in them.

The New Creation, pages 580, 581:

This brings before us the whole question of orders, societies, etc., and what privileges the New Creation has in connection with such organizations. Is it right for them to be members of these societies? We answer that while Church associations are purely religious, and labor and beneficial organizations in general are purely secular, there are still other orders which combine the religious and the secular features. As we understand the matter, for instance, the Free Masons, Odd Fellows, Knights of Pythias, etc., perform certain rites and ceremonies of a religious kind. Let it be understood that we are not waging any warfare upon those who hold membership in these various orders, even as we are not waging warfare against the various sectarian religious systems. We place upon one level all of those which have any religious ceremonies, teachings, etc., and consider them all as parts of Babylon, some quarters or wards of which are cleaner, and others less clean, but all, nevertheless, full of confusion, error–contrary to the divine intention, as displayed in the organization of the primitive Church and the instructions, by word and example, given to it by the inspired Founder, and his twelve apostles.

We admonish the New Creation to have nothing whatever to do with any of these semi-religious societies, clubs, orders, churches; but to “Come out from amongst them, and be ye separate, and touch not the unclean thing.” (2 Cor. 6:17) Their things, their worship, their teachings, their doctrines, are unclean to us, though they may not be unclean to themselves. The eyes of our understanding have been opened, and now to us all things appear in a new light, so that things which we once loved now we hate, and things which we once hated now we love.

What Pastor Russell Said

Question 317:2 (1910)

I am not judging at all, I am merely saying, so far as I can tell. But my understanding is, that all of these are bundles, and each bundle is getting tighter. Some of you know a great deal more about Freemasonry than I do, and I am not here to say anything against it, because I do not know anything to say, and I do not know as I would say it if I did know it. The Lord did not send me to preach against Masonry or Odd Fellowship, nor against Presbyterianism or Methodism. Our opportunity is to tell the truth, to preach the true gospel of Christ, and the Lord says that this message is to have its effects on the different hearts. Now, if you find yourself in any kind of a bundle, you know that is not the program so far as the wheat is concerned. The wheat is to he gathered into the garner; it is not to be put into bundles in the present life. The wheat is to be free. If you find yourself in any kind of a bundle, better get out of the bundle. Trust in the Lord, and be in harmony with Him, and this will take you out of all kinds of bundles and human organizations, I believe.

I should, perhaps, say a cautionary word here to the effect that I would understand this would mean, for instance, that if I were a carpenter I would prefer to be at liberty, but if it were demanded of me that I should join a union before I could have work, and that I must pay so much of my money into that union’s coffers, I should join. I should understand that I was making so much of a contribution to the general weal of the carpenters, and I would have no hesitation in the matter, because there is nothing of a religious kind there. There is nothing that would fetter my heart or mind. But if that organization should do anything I could not approve, I would feel perfectly free to withdraw at any time. So I would make that limitation. But, so far as wheat and tares are concerned, I think there are plenty of bundles all around you, and I notice, too, that these different worldly organizations, if we may so call them in contradistinction to church organizations, are also taking the same methods the church people are taking. It used to be very easy to withdraw from one of the churches and you could say, “I will thank you for a letter,” and then they would take the letter and never deposit it, but burn it up, if they desired. And so with the Masons; they had a method by which anyone desiring to leave the order could ask for a demit and he would get that without any particular question. I have been informed that now this is changed somewhat. If you are a Presbyterian, and you wish a letter, they say, “To which church do you wish the letter addressed?” You say, “Oh, just make it out anyway.” “Oh we do not do that now; we will give you a letter to a certain, particular church and it is to he deposited there–good when deposited there.” And so I am informed that our Freemason friends are doing the same thing; they do not give demits now. If you wish to be transferred to another lodge they will transfer you, but they do not give demits now in the same way they formerly did.

A Brother: Brother Russell, I am a Mason and, unfortunately, hold a high position in the order, and I would like to make a little correction on that. A Mason is perfectly free to leave when he feels so disposed. No restraint whatever is placed upon him.

Brother Russell: I told you in the beginning that I did not know about it myself; I was only relating what a brother told me.

Another Brother: I was a Mason in a different jurisdiction from that of the brother. It may he all right in his particular jurisdiction, but it is not the same in other jurisdictions, as I know.

Brother Russell: You will notice that we never have anything to say against any of these. We have not said an unkind word about Freemasonry, and you never read anything unkind that we have ever said about it, and I do not wish to say anything unkind about Presbyterianism, or Methodism. I think that many of the dear friends in these denominations are good people, and I appreciate their characters. What I talk about sometimes is Presbyterian doctrine, and they talk about it, too. And I have read things they have said about Presbyterian doctrines far harder than anything I have ever said. I sometimes quote in the Watch Tower some things Presbyterians say about their own doctrine, and I occasionally quote in the Watch Tower something the Methodists say about their doctrine, because they say it stronger than I should wish to say it.

See also:

A writer on blogsite states:

In 1913, Russell sued Baptist minister J.J. Ross in the Ontario High Court for libel for a tract Ross wrote about Russell the previous year.

The following statement has been made on a forum concerning Charles Taze Russell:

Russell questioned his faith at an early age and was uncomfortable with hell and predestination. He bounced around between Presbyterianism, Adventism, and Congregationalism before founding the movement that would become the JW’s.

Russell was right in questioning his faith in the teachings of man, especially those teachings that would depict the Creator as a fiendish demon as in such doctrines as the supposed indescribable eternal sufferings of billions of men, women, children, infants, etc., who died without believing in Jesus. Of course, as he pointed out, he thought that these teachings were actually a part of the Bible, and thus, believing this, his faith concerning the Bible also came into doubt. Once he learned that the Bible did not teach such blasphemous doctrines such as the eternal indescribable suffering of most of mankind, as well as the trinitarian dogma, and that it did teach that Christ died for all, he was right in taking up the Biblical stand for the truth concerning these matters.

For more information of the condition of the dead, hell, hades, sheol, lake of fire, eternal torment, etc., see:

For more information about the “ransom for all,” see:

For more information about the “trinity,” see:

Russell, however, learned the Biblical truths about hell, the condition of the dead, and about the trinity, as well as “the ransom for all,” from others who had become before him. His understanding of these matters did not originate from out of the blue, nor were they simply his own thoughts. It was the proper Biblical understand ing of these matters that led him to reaffirm his faith in the Bible, in the God of the Bible, and in Jesus as the Son of God who gave himself a ransom for all.

I doubt that Russell would have ever claimed to have been the founder of the Bible Students movement. At any rate, the Allegheny class of Bible Students existed before Russell became associated with N. H. Barbour, who was a “Second Adventist” (not to be confused with Seventh-Day Adventists).

Russell, of course, did not found an organization called “Jehovah’s Witnesses.” He never heard of such an organization; he did not believe in such an organization, and he preached against the formation of such an organization until the day he died. Russell refused to allow himself or the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society to become a “central authority” over the local congregations, although, individually, and as congregations, many of the Bible Students had come to view him as such.

The claim is being made that pyramidology is a “a spiritistic religion,” and that assuming this to be true, therefore Charles Taze Russell was a spiritist. Those who make this claim evidently have little idea as to what true pyramidology is about, and are probably confusing true Biblical pyramidology with practices of witchcraft, occultism, “pyramid power,” transcentalism, occultic freemasonry, etc., that have of late become associated with the term “pyramidology.” True Biblical pyramidology has nothing to do with such practices of spiritism.