Review
———-
Title: Charisma Under Pressure: Joseph Smith American Prophet 1831-1839
Author: Dan Vogel
Publisher: Signature Books in partnership with the Smith-Pettit Foundation
Genre: Mormon Studies
Year Published: 2023
Number of Pages: 1020
Binding: Cloth
ISBN: 978-1-56085-460-9
Price: 49.95
Reviewed by Cheryl Bruno for the Association for Mormon Letters
In Charisma Under Pressure, a meticulous and detailed biography of Joseph Smith from the years 1831 through 1839, Dan Vogel weaves together the known facts and existing scholarship surrounding the life of the enigmatic Mormon leader. Vogel’s expertise in early Mormon history shines through as he presents a thorough and well-documented account of Joseph Smith’s life during a time of change and upheaval. Drawing upon a range of sources, Vogel explores Smith’s religious experiences, revelations, and the social and cultural climate in which he operated during his late twenties and early thirties. The author has created a narrative that will serve as an essential resource for scholars and enthusiasts seeking a comprehensive understanding of Smith’s life.
After carefully reading this massive book of almost nine hundred pages of text, I have identified several areas that I feel are important to critique. In doing this, I frankly admit that Vogel’s mastery of the material is daunting. His research is quite well done and his knowledge of restoration history far surpasses mine. In taking a critical approach to reviewing Charisma Under Pressure, this evaluation will closely examine the book’s limitations and areas that warrant further consideration. By scrutinizing the work with an eye for constructive analysis, I aim to engage in a thoughtful exploration of its potential shortcomings and contribute to the ongoing scholarly discourse surrounding the subject matter.
In Vogel’s introspective preface, he sets out his view that the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham are forgeries but that Smith himself might have believed he was an inspired prophet, despite his knowing use of deception.[1] Vogel then places Smith in the framework of charisma–that of both the leader and the follower (without whose approbation the leader would not succeed). Vogel devotes a scant two pages in his introduction to testimonials of Smith’s followers supporting the definition of a charismatic leader—that he was handsome, had a gleaming countenance, and a light within. He was described as angelic, powerful, genial, prophetic, and electrifying. Several accounts describe Smith’s native eloquence in speaking, and Vogel concedes his physical prowess.
With such a title and background, an unsuspecting reader might think that the book would explore Joseph Smith’s charismatic character and why he had such influence on his followers. Such a book might answer the question of why, if Joseph Smith were a fraud, his adherents were willing to follow him across miles of country and ideological landscape. But Vogel, grimly immune to Joseph’s charms, continually points out his flaws. The author attributes Smith’s appeal to narcissism and exploitation rather than charisma. Chapter after chapter, the reader is left to wonder why his followers remained faithful to him; indeed, one might question why the Prophet had any followers at all.
On any occasion that a testimony might approach approval of or attraction to Smith, it is immediately followed by a sharp critique. For example, on p. 316, Vogel quotes Mary Beaman Noble as saying that Smith’s preaching sounded “so glorious,” and she “realized it was the truth of heaven.” He quickly follows this with a more lengthy published description of the same sermon, calling Smith an “impudent ignoramus” with “dull” eyes, “ungainly” manner, and “presumptuous impiety.” This critical lens is applied even to significant works, such as Smith’s Epistle to the Church from Liberty Jail (now D&C 121), where Vogel acknowledges the letter’s charisma but strongly critiques its content. Vogel accuses Smith himself of being the one covering up his sins, exercising unrighteous dominion, and enforcing it through the Danites. “The letter slips into the consoling voice of Deity as Smith attempted to cast himself as the persecuted and ultimately triumphant hero and the dissenters as villains,” Vogel scolds. “Smith gave no indication that he was willing to accept responsibility for running the Church into the ditch” (859-860). While Vogel’s emphasis on Smith’s flaws may be valid, it leaves the reader craving a deeper exploration of Smith’s appeal.
Of all the Joseph Smith biographies I have read, this one gives the least sense of Joseph’s personal charisma.[2] Instead, the book focuses on a theory, based on the writings of Max Weber, that a church based on charisma (such as Smith’s original calling by an angel) can only survive if the founder “stabilizes the erratic aspects of charisma,” “thwarts challenges,” and “institutionalizes charisma.”[3] Vogel has determined to demonstrate how Smith did just that.
“The first reconstitution of Smith’s charisma happened in 1834 and 1835,” Vogel explains, “when he enhanced his image, with the help of colleague Oliver Cowdery, as a charismatic personage and imparted legitimacy by introducing a new narrative of angelic ordinations.” At the same time, Smith established a hierarchy under him “that stratified and centralized authority.” Vogel posits a second reconstitution in 1838 when Smith began an official history obscuring his early treasure-seeking and participation in folk magic. “In so doing, Smith was not only defending his reputation, he was reconstituting his charisma through a story that would be more appealing to the wider culture, thus attracting more converts and thereby expanding his charismatic authority.”
Indeed, Vogel’s premise embellishes Smith’s lack of charisma and his increasing failure as a leader, which necessitates efforts to bolster his dwindling power and authority. In developing this theme, Vogel editorializes, often questioning the inspiration behind Smith’s actions, even when no one else at the time is doing so. On page 136, after describing a revelation reassigning William McLellin to a different field of missionary labor, Vogel cynically comments, “Apparently, at this time, no one questioned that such a quick reversal could be considered as inconsistent with God’s omniscience.” Regarding the Kirtland Temple, he enumerates architectural weaknesses, then remarks that “design flaws raise the question of how much of the inspired construction was left up to interpretation” (223).
Editing issues are apparent throughout the book, with numerous spelling and grammatical errors, misplaced tenses, and repetitive sections.[4] In a book this large, culling of repetition would have been helpful. Furthermore, as a documentary history, it aims to include every pertinent document from the period, resulting in a dry and tedious narrative at times. The book’s lack of charisma itself makes it challenging for the average reader to stay engaged throughout its 890 pages. However, there are compelling moments, such as the story of Zion’s Camp on pages 337-370. This was my favorite part, presenting as it did Joseph Smith’s quirky nature and tender relationship with his followers.
I have another small issue with Vogel’s frequent use of the word “anachronistic.” An example of anachronism is when something from a later time period is mentioned in an earlier document. For instance, if a document from 1844 talked about a car model from 1964, that would be anachronistic because the car didn’t exist back then. The people who wrote the 1844 document couldn’t have known about the car or caused it to appear in the future. When Dan claims that Joseph Smith’s 1838 account of an angel named Moroni telling him that the gold plates contained the teachings of Jesus to ancient people is anachronistic because the idea of Jesus visiting ancient America came later, he is incorrect. If Smith had truly been visited by an angel, the being would have known what was on the plates he was delivering. If the story was made up by Smith and he created the plates himself, he could have predicted Jesus’ visit and written about it later without it being considered anachronistic. Vogel uses the word “anachronism” twelve times in his book, many of them in an unwarranted fashion.
For many years, Dan Vogel has been forwarding the narrative of the continuing development of Mormon doctrine. This is based on impeccable research and reasoning as seen in his articles such as “The Earliest Mormon Concept of God,”[5] “Evolution of Early Mormon Priesthood Narratives,”[6] and his numerous YouTube videos.[7] In this biography, he puts this analysis together in one place and it is here that the book will make the greatest impact. I believe every Mormon studies scholar and enthusiast should become conversant with Vogel’s discussion of modalism in the Book of Mormon (“where Jesus is both the Father and the Son”), revised modalism in the Articles of Faith, how the First Vision accounts fit into the changing narrative between 1835 and 1844, and the dating of angelic priesthood ordination stories (by John the Baptist and by Peter, James, and John). Some scholars do not agree with Vogel’s analysis, but thus far his work has not been strongly rebutted.
However, caution should be exercised in accepting Vogel’s conclusions regarding changes in Smith’s narratives and the motivations behind them. The attribution of these changes to Smith’s diminishing charisma may oversimplify the complex historical context. For example, due to the paucity of reports of Joseph Smith’s sermons or teachings in the early years, we cannot be sure that he never told the story of his First Vision until 1832. In fact, Vogel dismisses possible evidence that may show that Joseph recounted his First Vision story earlier by saying that the witness’s memories “may have been tainted by what he later learned” (p. 106).
Similarly, I urge caution in making conclusive statements critiquing Smith’s claim that he was ordained to both the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods by angels. The introduction of the angelic ordination story, Vogel explains, was engineered by Oliver Cowdery in 1829 to “enhance Smith’s leadership,” reduce the possibility of schism and “raise Cowdery to prominence as a co-receiver of special authority” (384). I believe that the evidence for this motivation is slim.
In conclusion, Dan Vogel’s biography of Joseph Smith’s middle years is a stellar accomplishment. Few living historians other than Dan could have written it. His extensive research, impressive knowledge, and critical analysis make this biography an essential resource for researchers, critics, and devotees. While the book offers a thorough exploration of the existing contemporary documents on Smith’s life, it is not without its limitations. Vogel’s critical approach toward Smith’s character and leadership style, focusing more on flaws and exploitation, may leave readers without an understanding of Smith’s personal charisma or positive contributions. The author’s relentless scrutiny of Smith’s actions and motives may raise questions about the impartiality of the analysis. While the book’s dense nature and critical focus may present challenges, its insights into the evolution of Mormon doctrine and the complexities of Joseph Smith’s leadership make it a significant and thought-provoking addition to the field.
———————————————————————————————————————————————-
[1] In this, Vogel follows his previous description of Smith as a “pious fraud” in an earlier essay, “The ‘Prophet Puzzle’ Revisited,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 31, no. 3 (Fall 1998): 125-140. Here, pious refers to his good intentions, while fraud refers to deceptive activities.
[2] The year 1831 takes up the first 133 pages in the biography, during which Vogel privileges Ezra Booth’s and Eber D. Howe’s disparaging telling’s of the history—and sets a tone conveyed primarily through the eyes of disaffected or antagonistic enemies. Howe’s critical book, Mormonism Unvailed (Painesville, OH: Telegraph Press, 1834), was based largely on affidavits collected by Latter Day Saint dissenter Doctor Philastus Hurlbut and on the letters of dissenter Ezra Booth, which had been published in 1831 in the Ohio Star. Unfortunately, contemporary sources for these early years are sparse, but additional sources which challenge this unsympathetic view of early Mormonism do exist. For example, on page 38, Vogel quotes Howe’s description of the Mormon manifestation of the gift of tongues: “A scene of the wildest enthusiasm was exhibited…they would fall, without strength, roll upon the floor,…[and] exhibited all the apish actions imaginable, making grimaces both horrid and ridiculous…” Vogel presents these out-of-control meetings as something Smith must combat in order to maintain his religious authority. However, another description of a prayer meeting of the time that Vogel chooses not to use is by then-practicing William E. McLellin: “instead of shouting, screaming, jumping or shaking of hands in confusion, Peace, order, harmony and the spirit of God seemed to cheer every heart, warm every bosom and animate every Tongue. I really felt happy that I had seen the day that I could meet with such a people and worship God in the beauty of holiness, For I saw more beauty in Christianity now than I ever had seen before.” (William E. McLellin journal, 1831 July 18-1831 November 20; CHL). McLellin’s is a near-contemporaneous source, and although he later leaves the Church, at least his account shows that he experienced the charismatic draw of the early Church. Another account with this flavor not used by Vogel is Reynolds Cahoon’s effusive “found some of the Brethren and there my mortal eyes beheld grate and marvilous things such as my eyes once never even contemplated of seeing in this world we had a glorious meeting on the sabath with the Brethren.” (Reynolds Cahoon diaries, 1831-1832, CHL).
[3] See xvii in the Introduction, and Vogel’s use of Max Weber, S.N. Eisenstadt, ed., Max Weber on Charisma and Institution Building: Selected Papers (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968).
[4] A few errors I noticed in passing are as follows: Misspelling “bothers” for brothers on p. 149; “Next, they turn to Gilbert’s letter” (instead of “turned”) p. 199; “On this day, Hyrum recording in his journal” (instead of recorded) page 209; “on the southern edge of French property” (instead of “French’s”) p. 213; “or he need to explain why (instead of “needed”) p. 214; “both would soon be chosen as a member of the Quorum” (instead of “as members”) p. 377; “About this time, Smith continued his general epistle to the Church began on March 20” (instead of “begun”) p. 858; there is an inconsistency in the spelling of “jailer,” used on pp. 838, 852 and the less commonly accepted “jailor” on pp. 848, 854, 864, 865, 867; and many places where verb tenses do not agree.
Repetition is noticed in several places. For example, on pages 706 and 709, the same story is told using the exact same quote where William Swartzell sees Smith’s “box of mummys” at Richmond landing.
[5] Dan Vogel “The Earliest Mormon Concept of God,” in Gary James Bergera, ed., Line Upon Line: Essays on Mormon Doctrine (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1989), 17-33.
[6] Dan Vogel, “Evolution of Early Mormon Priesthood Narratives,” The John Whitmer Historical Association Journal 34, no. 1 (Spring/Summer 2014): 58-80
[7] See Vogel’s YouTube videos, for example, “Joseph Smith’s First Vision” in three parts, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sj9xgX65vnk, where he claims to uncover the core story and “the possible event in Joseph Smith’s life upon which the First Vision story may have been based,” and “explores some of the reasons he embellished his accounts.”