"Charlatan" is inflammatory, and in this case it is unwarranted. He was a 'true believer'. Wrong in many respects, but a true believer nevertheless. Calling him a charlatan suggests that he purposely deceived people. He was flawed. But he believed what he wrote and taught.
All of his doctrines, even his date system, came from others, but who were these? Without exception they were respected clergy who had preceded him. If his doctrine seems strange to us today, it was not foreign to his contemporaries, though as Mom and B point out in Separate Identity, the combination was novel and controversial.
I read on these boards claims that he was in it for the money. The historical record does not sustain this. Several court cases opened portions of the Society's books. it was a money losing concern, sustained out of Russell's pocket and contributions from followers. On his death it was nearly bankrupt.
I read on these boards claims about his morals. They derive from newspaper articles. But the transcript of the Russell divorce is in the public record in Allegheny County. A copy is expensive, but it is available. No-one making assertions about his morals here or on other discussion boards seems to have read it. You really should before you believe what newspaper articles say. And I can hear someone muttering, 'but have you read it?' Yes, my Mom, her writing partner, B. W. Schulz, and my uncle Karl all have copies.
Don't foster nonsense. Dislike Russell? Fine by me. Hate what he taught? Okay. But if you wish to state your distaste, do not present a false narrative. Someone will notice. And as quality research is published, more and more will notice. There are some really good books out there now, including my Mom's. And somewhere on the site she posted a longish bibliography of worthwhile books.
Mom would have presented this in a clearer fashion than I have and with more detail. Unfortunately she died this year at only 41. We miss her daily.
