Disclaimer: This is a question purely about Russell's Bible teaching, not about his personal life, whether he was a freemason or whatever else.
Ok, Russell set himself up as a Bible teacher, a lot of his theology was borrowed from groups such as the Adventists and certain pyramidologists of his time, and I agree that a lot of his conclusions were plain crazy.
My question is this - was the movement he started simply another misguided Christian denomination with genuine motives as opposed to what happened after Rutherford took over and added all the dogmas? Does Russell bear any of the blame for what the WBTS has become?
I'm not too sure if he does.
===============================================================
I think that Russell bears some responsibility for what the WBTS did become.
His major mistake was following Barbour in accepting the time proofs that Christ had returned invisibly in 1874, and many of his later mistakes are based on it. He had some acquaintance with the time proofs for 1873, but had rejected them. According to his account, he had come to believe that Jesus was raised as a spirit being and would return as a spirit being, and this led him to favorably consider Barbour's revised and improved time proofs now that Barbour had come to believe that Jesus had come invisibly in 1874.
Yet Russell had enough warning signs that he should have been more cautious and less dogmatic. He knew about previous failed predictions of the Adventists. His mentor George Storrs publicly in his journal which he edited disagreed with Barbour and Russell, warned against "definite time" and date-setting. Storrs was one of the main Millerite preachers in advocating a definite date for Christ's return in 1844, and Storrs from experience knew the disappointment. Barbour's chronology differed from the accepted chronology in the 70 year period, a fact which Barbour and Russell knew, but disregarded. Russell had known about the disappointment of Barbour's followers in 1873/4. Russell and Barbour had expected the rapture in 1878, which failed to take place. Russell then expected the rapture in 1881, which again did not occur.
Instead of giving up the notion of the invisible return of 1874, Russell came up explanations for the failures. He wrote three books on the subject of chronology, which sold in the millions of copies, in which he stated in the most absolute and dogmatic terms that Armageddon was fast approaching, that it was inevitable, that none of the reforms of man could stop it, it would be total, over all of mankind, and come swiftly and quickly, that God had cast off the churches, which would be destroyed in Armageddon, and that it was the duty of the faithful to leave and abandon the churches, and that the knowledge and acceptance of these time features would be the sickle that would separate the wheat from the tares. Many accepted these teachings, and sold these books, the books had become an authority in class meetings. Many went to work for him, make personal sacrifices for support his work.
He had predicted the time of trouble would occur between 1874-1914. But as 1914 approached, Russell began to hedge, and even denied that he had been dogmatic about 1914. When the World War started, he took this favorably as supporting his views. However, the Bible Student movement was in a state of confusion. Much that Russell had predicted by 1914, notably the removal of the church, had failed to occur. His followers had come to look on him as "that faithful and wise servant", which he did not deny, and they looked to him for guidance. Russell extended the harvest to 1918, expected a division of Elijah and Elisha, and make predictions about future world events.
But Russell died in 1916, leaving a power vacuum in a movement with disappointment and confusion, and vulnerable to exploitation. Russell was not responsible for Rutherford, and in his will and testament made efforts to prevent the abuse of power. But Russell was responsible for creating the conditions that Rutherford could exploit. Russell left the legacy of date-setting and re-explanation, of authoritarian leadership, of book study over Bible study, of speculative Bible interpretation.
Russell's mistakes were grievous, and cannot be ignored, no matter how much good he did or how good he was. They were not "natural" mistakes as he excused them. They were deliberate over a period of years involving many people. No doubt he was sincere in his beliefs and well intentioned. But a proper evaluation of his Bible teachings must begin with the recognition that he was wrong in his end-time scenario, was not wise or faithful in his course of action.
Russell's views were not consistent and was contradictory in attitude. He was personally gracious and winsome, believed in a loving God who would provide an opportunity for all mankind to be saved, advocated democratic methods of church government, encouraged individuality and tolerance of difference of opinions in minor issues, preached character development, the Christian graces, and love, especially to fellow brethren. Although he took types and symbols too far, he nevertheless had an appreciation for the power of the symbolic, and much of his writings make use Biblical metaphor and symbol, which bring a beauty and depth to his Victorian prose.
There was much good in Russell, and he had a liberal side to him, and likely was a better man than is reflected in some of his Armageddon ideas. This stood along with the chronological/Adventist/Barbour views, but they actually conflicted, and were not consistent. But the disappointment of 1914 and his death created a crisis in his movement from which it never recovered, and the BIble Student movement became narrow, isolated, and eccentric.
