Terry,
There are a few errors of fact, but you raise good questions. Russell met Wendell in 1869. We can date this from Russell’s own words and from an article in World’s Crisis. Russell dates the formation of the Bible Study Group to 1871. He does not say he started it, only that he attended it. His father came into the group the next year. They elected him pastor in 1876.
Schulz and de Vienne, the authors of the Nelson Barbour biography, note on their history blog that Russell did not accept Adventism, but was persuaded to associate with Abrahamic Faith believers. I cannot reproduce their work here. It’s on their private, invitation only blog and consists of chapters two and three of their forth-coming book. It is, however, a well documented bit of research drawing on many One Faith/Age-to-Come periodicals. Before I started reading their work, I had no clue these existed.
Russell did not claim that his theology was revealed directly from God. He was a restorationist theologian. (I use ‘theologian’ very loosely.) He believed truths lost were restored in the last days. He tells us, if we’re alert to the clues, from whom he got his beliefs.
The real questions here are those about M. F. Russell. I’ve read the divorce transcript. Russell does not come off well but neither does Maria. I don’t know why they agreed to a celibate marriage. Maria did not accuse him of adultery. The Watchtower claim is accurate. But there are elements of that story that give one pause. Also, Johnson in his Parousia Messenger (I believe) recounts a controversy at Bethel where one of Russell’s secretaries (a man) accused him of improperly touching female bethelites. Johnson, who was there, makes light of the accusation, but Johnson saw Russell as a second Christ.
The transcript shows how the Russells worked as a team. Charles would outline an article, passing it to Maria. Maria would write it. Trouble arose when she deviated from his outline.
Being celibate but married does not seem healthy. Russell as a pervert? Not proven – yet.
My copy of the transcript is a third or fourth generation photocopy. It does not scan or copy in readable fashion. Don’t ask. It’s out there. Maybe someone here has it in better form than I do and would make a pdf file.
The Russells did not adopt Rose Ball. She and her brother lived in their house. Their parents (at least the father) was still alive. My impression of Rose, as the story is told in the divorce transcript, is that she was a flirt but dressing as a younger girl. Russell was confused about her age; so were others. She was older than is usually presented.
On Russell’s business ventures: What among all his complex business ventures was unethical? I’ve read the claims, some of them quite emphatic. I’ve followed this in detail, and I cannot find anything illegal, unethical or even questionable. All I can find is the claim. A claim is not proof. I can claim that you have six toes. I can repeat it ad nauseam, but the proof rests in what is in your shoes. I want to see the proof. (About Russell, not your toes.) Russell had scrap iron, oil lease and equipment interests, invested in the stock market, owned part of a home furnishings business, various clothing stores, invested in a turpentine business (it was a fraud perpetrated by A. D. Jones who turned into quite a crook.) and there are hints of other business ventures. He wasn’t the golden boy of business his worshipers make him out to be. He didn’t originate the chain-store model as some claim. Schulz and de Vienne point to pre-existing stores of that type.
Miracle Wheat was a non-scandal. Russell was suckered by a sales brochure and the claims of an associate. There were miracle beans too. He was looking for proof that the Millennium had begun and restitution was at hand. The original Department of Agriculture reports are online, I believe.
“The truth is out there.” It may not lead where we think. But we need to ask the questions and follow the trails. The Watch Tower society won’t, or if they do, they’ll hide what they find.