I don't know if he was a lamb, exactly. That seems like going to the opposite extreme of calling him "The Wickedest Man," but an extreme just the same. However, it might be remarked that while Crowley was being called that, Oscar Wilde was being called for worse things while on trial for sodomy, which he lost. Although living in similar times, Crowley was never criminally charged; whether that means he was "better" or "worse" than Wilde is open to conjecture. I think that, although I myself have certain issues with him, if half the things written in the tabloids, then and now, were true, he would be put away. But he wasn't.
Coming to terms with such a figure is difficult, but perhaps one doesn't need to. "Coming to terms" implies diminishing a figure into something palatable, which leads to inaccuracies in perception. But the Law of Liberty, which I see at least some sense in, does not require from anyone emulation of the prophet, since that would be quite contrary to its spirit.
For the sake of argument, let's assume Crowley was a cult leader of the vilest kind, who took advantage of his victims, forcing them into the lewdest of acts. Ruthless, uncaring, unfeeling, a vampire of the weak, etc. His writings, however, push a message of liberty quite removed from his own life, stating again and again "don't do or say what I do or say, do your own Will." That isn't typical of a cult leader.
Besides, I find something quite "Thelemic" in his life, and I don't mean his doing of his Will. Thelema, influenced as it is by Hermeticism, makes a point of trying to afford direct spiritual experience, rather than following a written set of rules by which one is guaranteed salvation. His own life serving as a kind of "first ordeal," if one is able to go past Crowley's life and face some uncomfortable truths about his own life (such as what compels him, what hinders) one reaps rewards.