(Author’s note: I first began working on this project without even knowing it. The monograph that proceeds after this preface had its inauspicious beginnings in a muddled 20 page paper on charismatic leadership that was quickly forgotten. A sudden need for a new thesis drove me to dig up the paper, and thus I embarked upon Culture, Charisma and Peoples Temple.

Conducting this research allowed me to gain and grow in many ways. This paper was a requirement for my graduation from my undergraduate program at Antioch College, completing it was the last major hurdle in front of my diploma. I was able to find my academic voice and learn the process of creating an original work. The background work required for the creation of several sections of this paper allowed me to explore fascinating accounts of charismatic leaders, as well as to fully immerse myself in the history of Peoples Temple.

Looking back, I most appreciated the opportunity to become familiar with and comprehend the complex internal and external interactions between the Temple members, Jones and the outside world. I feel privileged to have been allowed the opportunity to learn the “code” of the Temple by using theories of charismatic leadership. I hope that this paper, published in its entirety on the Jonestown Institute website, will allow others the chance to understand the Temple through the lens that I have created.)

Introduction

On November 18, 1978, 918 people committed suicide (with the exception of children and some seniors) in one single ritual spanning half of a day. The majority of these deaths occurred in an isolated agricultural mission in the jungles of Guyana. These people were members of an organization known as Peoples Temple (which resembled a church until the last sixteen months of its existence). Peoples Temple was created and led by a man named James Warren (Jim) Jones. The Temple existed in three different geographical locations over the 23 years of its existence. The Temple began in Indianapolis, Indiana, relocated to California, and finally moved to the settlement known as Jonestown near the Venezuelan border in Guyana.

The members of Peoples Temple committed suicide on the same day that defectors from Jonestown, traveling with a congressional delegation led by U.S. Representative Leo Ryan, were ambushed by a Temple security detail. Ryan, three members of the media covering the delegation and one defector from the Temple were killed in the ambush while boarding a plane at a nearby airstrip in Port Kaituma, Guyana. Their deaths marked the beginning of the suicide ritual several miles away in Jonestown.

 Peoples Temple is largely remembered by the last day of its existence. This is due both to the large number of people who seem to have willingly taken their own lives and to the assassination that day of a U.S. Representative. While it is understandable that the shocking incidents that occurred on the final day garner so much attention, this focus excludes the 23 years of history of the Temple. An understanding of this history, which focuses on the relationship between the members of the Temple and their leader, Jim Jones, may allow for an explanation of what occurred on that day.

The Sensationalistic Response

Several explanations of Peoples Temple focus on the relationship between Jones and his followers. While Peoples Temple was still located in California, the media in the United States had taken an interest in publishing sensationalistic tales about life in Peoples Temple. This treatment of Peoples Temple by the press was assisted and encouraged by a loose-knit group of defectors and family members known as the Concerned Relatives. Media interest increased significantly when Peoples Temple began a mass migration to Guyana, immediately after publication of the most significant expose on the Temple. As the first reports of deaths at Jonestown reached the United States, the media was saturated with speculation about the Temple. Theories about the nature of the organization were published even before the completion of the body count in Jonestown. These theories focused on the most sensationalistic aspects of Temple life, such as “deviant” public sex practices amongst the Temple elite or harsh disciplinary procedures. 

A discernable theme underlies the majority of this first wave of work published about Jonestown. Temple members were described as helpless victims of mind control or brainwashing. For example, a prominent Jonestown conspiracy that developed soon after the tragedy involves brainwashing. This conspiracy theory states that the Jonestown residents were part of a CIA program named MKULTRA, an infamous program run between 1950 and 1980 that involved developing a drug suitable for mind control (Whittle). Similarly, other theories state that members were brainwashed by Jones’ oratorical style and were physically coerced until they were vulnerable enough to acquiesce to Jones’ plans (Concerned Relatives). Still more explanations hold that the members were all being held against their will by threat of death from the Jonestown security team (Kilduff), which actually consisted of only about 60 members (Moore 2004).

In this first wave of analysis, Jones was sometimes credited with full responsibility for the incident. For example, in the movie Guyana: Crime of the Century (released less than a year after the suicides), Jones is depicted as having complete control over the Temple congregation. The members are depicted as emotionless, passively following Jones’ orders. Often Jones was portrayed as possessing unexplained abilities that allow him to exert total control over Temple members.

The first wave of works attempting to explain Jonestown have one thing in common: They obscure the experience of the members in Peoples Temple. Regardless of whether they are portrayed as brainwashed, drugged or trapped by Jones’ mysterious powers, the members are portrayed as having little agency or ability to make rational decisions.

Reviewing a history of member participation in Peoples Temple, one can see that the members of the Temple were actively listening to Jones’ vision, and, through rational processes, were choosing to interpret that vision as truth. Those who chose to stay in the Temple after each geographical shift, as Jones’ portrayal of himself and his powers became progressively stranger, were making a conscious decision to accept Jones’ leadership. The theory that members were held against their will in the Temple contradicts a large amount of evidence that suggests the opposite. Primary sources and firsthand accounts by survivors point to the fact that members stayed in the Temple because they believed in the goals of the Temple and received tangible benefits from remaining in the organization. Importantly, this evidence also indicates that members played a significant role in shaping the destiny of the Temple.

Jones as a Charismatic Leader

Less sensationalistic work following the initial flurry of interest in Jonestown supports the idea that members played an active role in the life of the Temple. This work manages to examine the intricacies of the Temple’s existence more thoroughly, rather than catering to morbid fascination by publishing only the most sensational details. At times Jones is referred to as a charismatic leader in this work (Chidester, Hall). The term “charisma” was popularized by Max Weber, and indicates a unique form of leadership. The relationship between a charismatic leader and his/her followers is based on the followers feeling obligated to follow the leader due to their perception of the leader as a savior endowed with great power. The leader’s authority depends on the follower’s belief in these traits. As the authority of the leader is dependent on the beliefs of the led, the followers are just as essential as the leader in the formation of charismatic authority (Weber).

Work that does claim Jones was a charismatic leader is not supported by extensive research. Associating charisma with Jones’ authority is normally done in passing and is not relevant to the main objective of the research (Chidester, Hall). The authors who do utilize this term are not dedicated to fully explaining how Jones was charismatic. Rather, this term is used merely to denote the unusual authority vested in Jones by his followers.

The intentions of this paper are to examine whether Jones could accurately be described as a charismatic leader, and how this type of authority emerged. The researcher believes that the process of determining the relationship between Jones and his followers was based on charismatic authority. If the results of the research suggest that Jones was endowed with charismatic authority, then the argument for understanding members in the Temple as active participants in their fate will be supported.

A striking characteristic of the bulk of the literature on charismatic leaders is that there are no generalized measures for charisma. The term is applied differently by various authors. The lack of measures makes it difficult to uniformly attribute charismatic authority to leaders. It also leads to wide use of the term, which diminishes its significance.

In addition to providing a new understanding of Peoples Temple, this research will attempt to address this problem in the body of existing research on charismatic literature by applying measures that have been created for charisma. This will be done by the applying the theory of charismatic leadership, developed by Philip Smith, in order to develop generalizable measures for charisma. Smith attempts to do this by examining leaders’ use of symbols, especially threatening symbols. The presence of these symbols and the specific manner in which they are used and understood provide measures by which charismatic leadership may be gauged (Smith).

In order to apply Smith’s theory to Jonestown, it is necessary to turn to primary sources that detail the life of the Temple. Specifically, these sources are transcribed audiocassette tapes that were recorded by Jones and other Temple members. These tapes contain segments of sermons and meetings that occurred throughout the history of Peoples Temple. The researcher will investigate a sample of these transcriptions for evidence of the measures of charismatic leadership contained in Smith’s framework.

The researcher has a central question that this paper will address: Under what conditions do certain elements identified by Smith (the use of threatening symbols by the leader; the members understanding of the leader as the only solution to those threats; and the impact of those threats on the followers interpretations of their surroundings) create charismatic authority? If Jones is found to be charismatic by Smith’s standards, the researcher will determine the conditions that allowed this type of authority to appear by identifying phenomena in the tape transcripts that enabled the elements identified by Smith to emerge.

While determining the conditions that allow for the emergence of charismatic authority, the researcher will also explain two hypotheses. These hypotheses were constructed to reflect Smith’s framework for charismatic leadership. Investigating them will help to understand whether Smith’s theory is applicable to Peoples Temple. The researcher believes that [1] in order for a bond of obligation to be formed between a leader and the led, the leader must be associated with threats in a manner that makes the leader appear to be the only solution to those threats. In addition, [2] these threats must shape the way followers interpret their surroundings. The researcher also believes that an increase in both the amount of threats referenced in the daily activities of a group, and the number of times followers interpret their surroundings as affected by those threats, will lead to an increase in evidence of a charismatic bond of obligation between the leader and the led.

By finding what conditions allow for the elements of charismatic authority identified by Smith to coalesce, testing these hypotheses mentioned above, the researcher intends to develop a new explanation for what happened in Peoples Temple. In addition, the researcher hopes to help develop measures for charismatic authority by applying Philip Smith’s theory.

Descriptive History

Indiana 1954-1965

The organization known as Peoples Temple began when one young man, James Warren (Jim) Jones, received the calling of Pentecostal religion in Indiana. At 21, Jones obtained a position as a student pastor in the Sommerset Southside Methodist Church in Indianapolis, about 80 miles away from his hometown of Lynn.

Jones’ time at Sommerset was characterized by his firm insistence on preaching to an integrated congregation. His vocal stance on integration made his position at the church short-lived, as such sentiment was not welcome in most parts of Indianapolis in the early 1950’s. He was asked to leave within the year. Through attending churches and conventions in the period after his dismissal, Jones became aware of the popularity of demonstrations of “gifts of the spirit,” a phenomena that was rampant in Pentecostalism. These gifts of the spirit are described in 1 Corinthians 12: “…the word of wisdom, prophecy, the divine tongue and the interpretation of tongues” (Hall 1987).

Jones soon discovered he had a capacity for demonstrating these gifts. Jones’ considerable talent in expressing these “gifts of the spirit” was soon noticed in Indianapolis and he was frequently invited to be a guest speaker at the Laurel Street Tabernacle, an Assemblies of God Pentecostal Church. However, Jones soon took issue with the all-white, segregated congregation of the church and left once again, this time taking around 10 followers with him. The followers’ decision to go with Jones was essentially based on their willingness or desire to participate in an interracial congregation (Hall). Jones and his followers established a church in 1955 named Wings of Deliverance, which was soon changed to The Peoples Temple Full Gospel Church with their acquisition of a larger church.

A specific theme underscored the development of Peoples Temple in its early years as an integrated church in a section of Indianapolis that was beginning to feel the adverse affects of white flight. This theme was the radicalization of the Pentecostal faith. This entailed breaching the gaps between the views of Pentecostals and Protestants who adhered to the Protestant Christian intellectual movement of the Social Gospel. Specifically, Pentecostal views were predominately “other worldly.” That is, the second coming of Christ was believed to be imminent and Christians should devote their energies to preparing for it, rather than addressing social evils that exist in the current world. Conversely, the Social Gospel stated that that the Second Coming could not happen until humankind rid itself of social evils by human effort (Weightman).

One outcome of this radicalization became one of the most significant aspects of Peoples Temple in these beginning years: the development of a human services ministry by Peoples Temple. In 1960, Peoples Temple opened up a free restaurant, which served about 2,800 free meals a month (Reiterman), as well as a social service center in Indianapolis. The establishments were well regarded and they represented a first concrete step by Peoples Temple in proving that the institution was capable of providing effective social programs as well as otherworldly religious preaching in the Pentecostal style. This process was accelerated in 1960 with the official affiliation of Peoples Temple with the Disciples of Christ, a Protestant denomination. The Disciples of Christ, among other things, stress social ministry far more than Pentecostalism (Weightman). This affiliation served to link the Temple with socially active liberals in the city. Peoples Temple also gained notoriety through the continuation of Jones’ uncompromising stance against segregation. In multiple cases, church members were organized to integrate churches as well as other institutions in Indianapolis (Hall). The rising credibility of Peoples Temple in Indianapolis can be seen most clearly in then-Mayor Charles Boswell offering Jones a position as the Executive Director of the Human Rights Commission of Indianapolis in 1961 (Jones accepted).

Jones’ sermons for Peoples Temple in its Indiana years reflected the actions that the Temple was undertaking in Indianapolis. Jones preached a type of Christian Socialism, a movement which applies Christian principles to social problems. Jones often railed against other Christian churches in his sermons for failing to remain socially active. He accused them of losing the spirit of Christ, which, for Jones at this point, was synonymous with Christian Socialism (Hall). At this point in the history of Peoples Temple, Jones did not portray himself as a deity, and held to a recognizable, although radical, Pentecostal style of preaching. This period of Jones’ ministry can be distinguished from later periods in that he still regarded the Bible as authoritative, and, although he may have occasionally disputed the existence of what he called a “Sky God,” he still gave deference to God and Jesus Christ. This can be seen in a sermon he delivered at an unknown time in Indianapolis in which he corrects himself after mistakenly calling Peoples Temple his own: “It's His church. Who shed the blood for us? Who shed his blood for us? Who shed his blood? Who died for us? It's His church” (Q1058 part 2).

The Indiana years of Peoples Temple saw the emergence of another common theme in the history of the group: the threat of nuclear holocaust. Jones first began describing his vision of a nuclear holocaust to his assistant minister, Archie Ijames, in 1961 (Reiterman). Soon, the threat of nuclear destruction became a constant theme of Jones’ speeches, and even developed to the point that he was predicting the date of the nuclear apocalypse (Chidester). Catherine Thrash, who remained with Peoples Temple until the end, recalled: “Jim predicted the nuclear holocaust would come June 15, 1967, but I didn’t believe it. Some older people did. They were so afraid” (Towne 1995).

Jones’ belief in this danger led him to investigate areas of the world that would be safe from the effects of radioactive fallout in the case of nuclear attack, and he spent a significant amount of time attempting to find an appropriate place to relocate his flock. Four years later, escaping this danger would be one of the prime reasons for the migration of Peoples Temple from Indiana to Redwood Valley in California, which Esquire magazine identified as a “nuclear safe zone” in its January 1962 issue (Chidester). Although Jones was making references to a nuclear apocalypse, at this point in the history of Peoples Temple, the threats that Jones and the members perceived were relatively few in comparison to the multitude of dangers that would appear in the future.

Those who joined Peoples Temple during this time period appeared to be attracted to the benefits of the Christian Socialism and the human service ministry that Peoples Temple provided. Thrash recalled that her initial interest in the Temple as being due to both the interracial congregation and to the ability to receive and as well as provide services through Peoples Temple (Towne). Another member, Ross Case, disturbed that “Eleven o’clock was the most segregated hour in America” (Weightman 1983), was attracted to the potential of Christian gospel being used to promote desegregation. At this point, those who joined Peoples Temple were interested in the human service ministry or in Jones’ engaging sermons that addressed social inequalities in his characteristically uncompromising terms (Hall).

The strain of developing a following, participating in healing conventions across several states and working as a city official city adversely affected Jones’ health, to the point that his doctor ordered a change of pace (Hall). Between 1962 and 1964, Jones would spend time in Belo Horizonte, Brazil, one of the areas identified by Esquire magazine article as a nuclear safe area. There, he would work with orphanages while also investigating the city’s potential as a possible emigration location. A notable stop Jones made between Brazil and the United States during this period was in Guyana, then known as British Guiana. There, Jones decried the financial excesses of Christian churches in the United States, arguing that the money could be better used by giving it to “developing countries such as British Guiana” (Hall 1987). Perhaps coincidental, this statement gains significance in retrospect, as 10 years later Jones would finance the infamous mission to aid the Guyanese known initially as Peoples Temple Agricultural Project.

Upon Jones’ return to Peoples Temple in Indiana, he found the strength of the church greatly diminished under the care of his assistant ministers. Splits in the leadership of Peoples Temple led more conservative white members to leave, due to problems stemming from their racial prejudice. In addition, Peoples Temple was becoming increasingly alienated in the Indianapolis community from both conservative white anti-integrationists and black clergy, who viewed Jones’ interracial congregation as a threat to their own flocks. Jones realized that these hostile circumstances threatened Peoples Temple’s ability to expand, and upon his return in 1964 began to make plans to leave the state (Hall).

In addition to providing shelter from the nuclear apocalypse that Jones was more frequently referencing, the move was described as a means to continue the human services ministry of Peoples Temple in a more receptive environment. Ultimately, this desire was realized in the creation of a commune in Redwood Valley, California. After the disposal of most of Peoples Temple assets in Indiana, Jones and the most loyal of his congregation sold their personal property and prepared to move west. In the spring of 1965 a group of about 70 people, of whom roughly half were white and half were black left for California.

California 1965-1977

The years that Peoples Temple spent in California - 1965 to 1977 - were characterized by two general themes. One was the emergence of Peoples Temple as a great political, financial and moral power in California. The other was the significant shift in Jones’ ministry regarding the ways he defined himself and the dangers that threatened his congregation.

The initial period that Peoples Temple spent in California was an inauspicious start for an organization that was to gain formidable political clout in the urban centers of California over the next decade. After arriving in Redwood Valley, California, in 1965, Peoples Temple undertook a year-long effort to be incorporated as a church in the state. After their incorporation, it took over two years for Peoples Temple to build a place of worship, which ended up being on Jones’ own property in California. During this period, the membership stayed small at about 90-150 members, with a very slow trickle of new members (Hall).

The people who joined Peoples Temple between 1965 and 1968 formed a core of mostly white, middle-class professionals or students. They were attracted to an activist communal group that offered the structure of a family and the goals of a social movement organization, in contrast to the alienation of the larger counter cultural movement of the 60’s. Peoples Temple also provided a career opportunity for some professional whites, especially in the new fields of Temple expansion, notably real estate and other business ventures (Hall).

The action that primed the organization for expansion was the establishment of churches in San Francisco and Los Angeles in 1970. Los Angeles’ and San Francisco’s large populations of urban African Americans made them much more receptive cities to Jones’ stances on integration and racial equality than the rural, primarily white Redwood Valley. The importance of this move can be seen in the explosion of Peoples Temple members, from 300 people in 1969 to 712 in 1970-71, and then around 2,200 in 1972 (Hall).

The increase in members can be explained as a result of both the expanded facilities and what Peoples Temple offered to its new members. Members often were initially attracted to Peoples Temple services due to the healing ceremonies that Jones conducted. The healings were featured in the handbills Peoples Temple distributed to advertise upcoming Temple services (Weightman). Temple lawyer Tim Stoen estimated that as many as 50,000 to 100,000 people came to hear Jones speak and conduct healings during the California period. However, at its greatest, the membership of Peoples Temple was only 3,000 (Hall).

While the healings attracted new members, the wide range of services and activities that the Temple offered usually served to retain them. The blossoming financial power of the Temple during its time in California allowed it to support such programs as the provision of clothing, shelter, food and medical care; entertainment; scholarships and housing for college students; bus services for seniors, and more. As stated above, the Temple also provided an interracial congregation, familial structure and an effective means by which people could work for positive social changes (Hall). A comment from the personal correspondence written by Temple member Annie Moore supports this point:

The reason that the Temple is great is not just because Jim Jones can make people cough up cancers but because there is the largest group of people I have ever seen who are concerned about the world and are fighting for truth and justice for the world (Moore 1986).

Part of the reason for Peoples Temple’s rapid expansion was the economic success of the human service ministry model that the Temple brought with it from Indiana. At the same time Peoples Temple moved to Redwood Valley, the state of California began deinstitutionalizing its overcrowded mental health hospitals, which housed the elderly, drug addicts, handicapped as well as the mentally ill. These hospitals were emptied in favor of a plan of decentralized locations, to be run by private owners and funded by the federal government in the form of Supplemental Security Income. A large part of Peoples Temple human services was realized in the conversion of numerous houses into care centers. This practice became an especially lucrative source of income when it expanded to resemble a franchise, with members acting as independent owner/operators of centers and sending the bulk of the profits back to the Temple (Hall).

Along with the care giving business, an exceptionally wide range of financial activities, including farming, mailing schemes, sales of objects blessed by Jones, members donating their possessions, and aggressive pushes for donations at services, gave the Temple a large amount of wealth. This allowed the Temple not only to establish a ministry in Los Angeles, but also to purchase a fleet of buses in 1971 that transported members from all over California to Peoples Temple locations (Hall).

The organizational structure of Peoples Temple became very well defined at this point. This definition was a direct result of the Temple’s vastly expanding scope of operations and its increased range of services. It took a tremendous amount of work in order for the Temple to properly manage its assets and daily activities. This structure can be described as a series of concentric circles, with Jones at the center. Jones was surrounded by a circle of confidants and close staff, who, in turn, were surrounded by loyal administrators. Next came the working organizers and the Planning Commission of Peoples Temple, which could be about 100 people at times. The rest of the organization consisted of the “rank and file” members (Hall).

The growing membership of Peoples Temple, coupled with the ability of Jones and Temple staff to mobilize their membership, began to pay off in the form of political clout. It is widely rumored that many officials owe their positions to the organizing efforts of Peoples Temple in the San Francisco elections of 1974 and 1976. The most significant of these elections was liberal George Moscone’s victory in the San Francisco mayoral race in 1976, which was widely speculated to be the direct result of Peoples Temple organizing (Weightman). As a result, once again Jones found himself legitimized by a city mayor, this time through appointment to a regulatory committee for the San Francisco Housing Authority.

At the same time that great changes were occurring in the physical and organizational structure of Peoples Temple, changes were also occurring in the way Jones was perceived and in the nature of the threats that Jones believed Peoples Temple faced. The threat of a nuclear apocalypse was a strong motivation for the uprooting of Peoples Temple from Indiana. While nuclear apocalypse was still referenced as an evil force in Jones’ sermons, it began to be supplanted by another threat in the California years: a right-wing takeover of the United States.

This change can be seen as the Temple members’ understanding of the world needing to change to address contemporary events. Anne Kane’s observations about group interpretations of surroundings are relevant here: “if these understandings are ineffective in explaining conditions, the culture [read threats] is subject to change” (Kane 1991).

In the 1950’s and 1960’s Peoples Temple was concerned with a nuclear apocalypse. This corresponds with the rise of the Soviet Union as a nuclear power, with its first test of a nuclear weapon in 1949, and with the Cold War. This also corresponds with the height of nuclear brinksmanship during the Cold War, represented by the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. The decrease in tension between the US and USSR in the resulting years led to the threat of nuclear apocalypse becoming less plausible. Therefore, the emphasis had to change. Jones needed to justify the move to California and refocus the origins of the threat, especially after the specific dates he predicted for the apocalypse came and passed. This can be seen clearly in the following statement by Jones, taken from a sermon from 1972: “So I’ve got an emergency plan for whatever. I know that there’s going to be a great holocaust. I know the date of that. In the meantime, there may be a dictatorship take over” (Q1032).

The shift in dangers from nuclear Armageddon to a fascist takeover was represented in the political content of Jones’ sermons. Once a man who, in 1957, had called communism a “challenge to God’s people” (Q1058), Jones now became an uncritical supporter of communism and the USSR (Hall) As a left leaning power, the USSR became a potential ally in the event of a fascist takeover of the United States, rather than a nuclear threat. References to this new fascist threat are apparent in the sermons that Jones delivered from 1972-1977 and the activities of Peoples Temple while it was in California.

In sermons delivered at this time, Jones made several references to disturbing developments in the United States that supported this theme of an emerging right wing. For example, in front of a Los Angeles congregation in 1972, Jones voiced concern over a current rumor, that Nixon was moving to call off the election of 1972. Jones accused the CIA of assisting with this plan. Jones referenced the growing strength and boldness of the Ku Klux Klan, the creation of secret concentration camps, and evidence that “says the military has a plan to destroy every minority [with] ethnic weapons” (Q1032). This concern was reflected through other means in Peoples Temple as well, such as in the plays presented by the loose-knit vaudeville Temple group, the Skitsophrenics. These plays sometimes recreated Klan lynching scenes and portrayed them in front of an audience that was mainly elderly and black (Naipaul).

The inner circle of Peoples Temple was used by Jones as a testing ground for ideas he had to deal with these new threats. It was in Planning Commission meetings in 1973 that Jones first mentioned committing revolutionary suicide, after the defection of eight members of the Temple [1]. Furthermore, and perhaps more significantly, the first “suicide drill” was conducted in a Planning Commission meeting on New Year’s Day in 1976. Jones offered the members what he told them was poisoned wine, and explained that they faced imminent death at the hands of the FBI and CIA, who at that point had become symbols of a fascist/right wing threat (Weightman). Although the wine turned out not to be poisoned, this incident was the first time that Revolutionary Suicide was utilized as a way to cope with threats. It was a practice that was to reemerge later, albeit in a more public form.

While the evil threats facing Peoples Temple were shifting, the way Jones described his powers was also dramatically changing. The manner in which Jones defined himself in the California period of Peoples Temple history was often contradictory. During this period, Jones was transitioning between two identities: being a preacher of God’s word in Indiana to being a self-proclaimed deity in Guyana. The movement between these two positions was often paradoxical. In California, Jones remained reliant on traditional religious imagery and used the Bible to justify his logic in sermons. Simultaneously, Jones would discredit the Bible and position himself as a powerful being in his own right in opposition to religious figures, such as God.

The beginning of this change can be seen in the circumstance of Ross Case’s leaving the Temple in the period shortly after the migration to California. He stated that he left because Jones “no longer accepted the Bible as true or authoritative…and he sought to replace Jesus Christ in the devotion of Peoples Temple by himself” (Weightman 1983). The changes that Case observed in the move from Indiana to California would be characteristic of Jones’ ministry for the remainder of the California years.

Over the next decade, Jones’ sermons would have several recognizable themes.

One theme was the discrediting of mainstream religion. While Jones had always criticized churches for corruption or ineptitude, he went further in California, criticizing the main text of Christianity, the Bible. It was not uncommon for Jones, in the middle of a sermon, to throw the Bible onto the ground and stomp on it (Hall).

 Another theme was the positioning of himself in opposition to the “Sky God,” the God worshipped in the three monotheistic religions. Jones accused the Sky God of allowing all of the cruelty of the world to occur. This allowance, in Jones’ opinion, was effectively condoning the suffering of the people of the Earth (Chidester). Jones also admonished his followers and others for believing in a God that they could not see: “You can’t believe in this Sky God! You’ve got to believe in something you see” (Q356). Jones placed himself in opposition to the Sky God by modifying the way that he described the powers he possessed. While in Indianapolis, Jones had mainly recognized the existence and primacy of God and Jesus Christ, attributing his powers of healing to “gifts of the spirit.” However, once in California, Jones began a transition, which ultimately concluded in Guyana, from being a mere conduit to God’s powers to portraying himself as a deity with powers that equaled those of God. Jones’ new powers included telepathy, immortality, and abilities both to prevent the deaths of Peoples Temple members and raise the dead (Chidester).

The use of these powers was a direct challenge to the Sky God. Jones was effectively subverting the Sky God’s powers every time he used his abilities for good (Chidester). This can especially be seen in how Jones’ powers of healing came to encompass not only healing but also the ability to raise the dead. This ability eventually came to be the most important of his powers in Guyana. Jones made frequent mentions of this power. In front of his congregation in San Francisco in 1972, he said, “You’ve seen three people drop dead and you saw them resurrected” (Q1035).

 Members joining Peoples Temple in California soon became aware of Jones’ status as a deity. As Odell Rhodes recalls: “you couldn’t be around there [Peoples Temple] very long at all without picking up that you didn’t thank God, you thanked Jim Jones” (Feinsod ).

Although Jones rejected the Sky God, and positioned himself as a deity of equal power while in California, this time period is only indicative of a larger transition in Jones’ depiction of his power. While at this point Jones had moved away from being a traditional preacher of God’s word, he had not yet completely abandoned the use of the Bible to legitimize himself. As Fielding McGehee III states:

He criticizes belief in what he calls the Sky God, yet he invokes many passages of the Bible to grant Peoples Temple the authority to act as it does. He blasts King James as a slave owner, and says the Bible was used to enslave African blacks, yet he himself uses the King James version (McGehee 1999).

While rejecting the legitimacy of the Bible as God’s word, Jones did not move into a totally atheistic frame of logic while in California. Although Jones positioned himself as a savior during this time, his use of religious imagery and logic ensured that he was not the only solution to the threats that faced the Temple. Rather, Jones at this point was still a conduit to a larger power, the power of God. This power was the same power shared by the Sky God. The implications of Jones not being the only source of power were that members would be able to seek the same benefits that Jones’ powers represented from other beings, such as God. For this reason, Jones’ significance as a deity was not yet absolute. 

While members were being taught about the threats of a right-wing, fascist takeover, very tangible and practical problems began developing for Peoples Temple in the mid-to-late 1970’s. Peoples Temple Redwood Valley outpost, in its rural, isolated location, had initially appeared to be a suitable solution for the threats of both nuclear apocalypse and a fascist takeover of the country. However, defections and negative media attention that began to occur in 1973 represented cracks in the organization, and grew into problems that threatened the life of the group.

In the wake of eight defections in 1973, the leadership of Peoples Temple began considering finding another location (Weightman). The leadership feared that these defectors would discredit the name of the Temple. In addition, a newspaper article that was critical of the Temple was published in the San Francisco Examiner in September 1972 – the first of the mountains of bad press that the Temple was fated to receive. Acting quickly, in October of 1973, the leadership decided on establishing a mission in Guyana, as Jones had favorably recalled the country from his travels a decade earlier. In the winter of 1974, a trusted contingent of inner circle members were sent to Georgetown, Guyana to negotiate a large lease of jungle land from the government. Simultaneously, a group of pioneers, organized and financed by the Temple, began to prepare the future site in Guyana for settlement (Hall). This event also marks the growing importance that defectors would assume in the history of Peoples Temple.

Several factors increased the urgency of preparing a place for migration, as well as preparing a plan to redistribute the Temple’s wealth in a manner that would protect it from the U.S. Government. The primary reason involved Peoples Temple’s wealth and their tax status according to the IRS. For a long time the Temple group had operated in a “grey area” of religious tax exemption. For example, the franchised home care services and the substantial real estate that the Temple owned were not necessarily covered by religious tax exemption, although the Temple paid no taxes on either of these assets. Peoples Temple attempted to create a tax exempt corporation which would manage these assets. However, the IRS denied this proposal in 1976. Temple Lawyer Gene Chaiken warned in 1977 that, since 1971, the Temple had been conducting financial activities which were indeed taxable. This liability and the IRS’ increasing scrutiny of the Temple were serious issues that threatened the longevity of the church (Hall).

Several secondary reasons for the move existed. For example, a much more detailed series of critical articles were poised to be published in the magazine New West in 1977. The pieces by Marshall Kilduff incorporated damning allegations and testimonials from defectors from the Temple (Weightman). In addition, the activities of the press were allowing different defectors to become aware of each other, and some of the defectors began to organize against Peoples Temple.

The settlement that was being created in Guyana, originally named Peoples Temple Agricultural Project and then later known as Jonestown, was portrayed in several different ways to the members of Peoples Temple. Jonestown was presented as a location where the members could avoid the main threats purportedly facing the Temple, a nuclear apocalypse and a fascist takeover. The Temple was also presented as a society free from the oppression and difficult circumstances that had plagued the majority of Peoples Temple members. As Odell Rhodes recalled, Jonestown presented an opportunity to stay clean and away from addictive drugs, as well as offering the opportunities of a worker’s democracy (Feinsod). Pat Grunnet, a schoolteacher who was a member of the Temple, extolled the virtues of the community and the comparative safety it offered to seniors and children: “They don’t have to worry about walking at nite – like in the city. I guess they even mug folks nowadays in the daylight!” (Grunnet 1978).

 Another benefit that Jonestown represented to Peoples Temple members was the ability to continue providing the human services that characterized Peoples Temple. Jonestown would serve as an agricultural mission that could feed the hungry in Guyana (and the world) where members could serve a specified amount of time. Temple member Catherine Thrash recalls that she and her husband “were supposed to be in Guyana just one year, to help the Guyanese get on their feet” (Towne 1995). In 1975 the mission in Guyana was described as a “direct action which will make food available in the time of need” (Melton 1990).

Demographic information on Jonestown reveals a few more details regarding who chose to migrate. Of the 1020 Temple members who lived in Guyana, 68% were African-American; 24% were white; 5% were of mixed race; and 3% were Latino/a, Native American, Asian, Pacific Islander or, as a few cases were, an unknown race. A geographical study of the birthplaces of the members reveals that the majority of the members who came from outside of California were from the south. There were a large number of family ties as well, with 100 family units present, the majority of which consisted of three family members. The majority of all of the members who lived in Guyana came from working-class jobs (Moore 2004).

It has been argued that Peoples Temple was both a racially and culturally black organization (Moore 2004). This is due to its striking similarities with other black religious movements. This is especially true with the movement known as the Peace Mission, led by self-proclaimed black messiah Father Divine, the movement that Jones initially modeled Peoples Temple after.

The southern roots of many of the African-American Peoples Temple members allow for further speculation about the appeal of Peoples Temple to its members. Authors such as Joseph Washington found that blacks moving from the south found the established northern churches inadequate to their spiritual needs and irrelevant to their material circumstances. Culturally black cults, which were seen as a “creative, imaginative and indigenous (if insufficient) response to the failure of churches and society to satisfy the immediate needs of black people” (Washington), were more appealing to this group. Other observations about black cults, consistent with the history of Peoples Temple, support the idea of the Temple as a black cult: “There is an indication that as American Negro cults become more intent upon social, economic, and political problems the literal adherence to the Bible as a book of reference diminishes” (Faust as quoted in Moore 2004). As the Temple’s scope of humanitarian operations increased in California, the legitimacy of the Bible as God’s word decreased.

Understanding Peoples Temple as a black cult allows one to make assumptions about the motivations of some of the members for traveling to Jonestown. Black experience in the post-Civil War era in the United States was characterized by migration. Occasionally, some blacks would receive calls to migrate to kingdoms of god under the leadership of black messiahs, such as Father Divine. There were three basic migration patterns: movement from the south to Kansas and Oklahoma, movement from the south to the cities of the north and the west, and the more radical back to Africa movement that was embodied in Marcus Garvey’s movement, in which some Peoples Temple members participated. Before the move to Jonestown, Jones often referenced the settlement as the “Promised Land.” Some argue that this is indicative of Jones playing into a tradition of African Americans as God’s chosen people and appealing to the theme of black migration in order to mobilize his congregation (Hall).

Demographic information, testimonials by survivors, and evidence gleaned from sermons and church documents all allow the reader to understand the variety of ways Jonestown was portrayed and who went. While some general assumptions can be made, it is difficult if not impossible to construct the specific reasons why each member migrated. This is due to the fact that the vast majority of those who went to Jonestown did not survive.

Migration from California to Jonestown began in earnest in July of 1977, with the Temple providing plane tickets to those who were interested. In August the largest number of members (348) would depart for Jonestown although there would still be newcomers arriving to the mission in October 1978 (Hall). By September 1977, it became clear that Peoples Temple had shifted its base of operations once again and the Temple in California was merely a skeleton force left to conduct Temple affairs in its former home country.

Guyana 1977-1978

The steady arrival of members to Jonestown over the summer of 1977 strained the settlement community. Housing shortages were an immediate consequence, and children were required to share beds due to lack of space (Hall). Other logistical difficulties emerged for the leadership of Peoples Temple, such as the complications of feeding the population three times a day. Reports indicate that the diet was mainly rice and beans, and conflicting information exists regarding whether or not the diet was adequate for the difficult work the members were doing (Weightman). Allegations that the residents of Jonestown were starving and malnourished were a frequent accusation made by the Concerned Relatives, a group described below. In addition, life at Jonestown required a level of activity that some new residents were not prepared for.

Despite the many ways in which Jonestown was marketed to Temple members, it was in reality an agricultural mission in the middle of Guyanese jungle. The most grueling work was found in the master plan for the settlement, which was to clear 2,500 acres of jungle surrounding the center of the camp. In addition, exposure to sunlight and extreme heat taxed the residents (Towne). Disciplinary procedures took a much more public form in Jonestown. Once reserved mainly for the Planning Commission, these methods, which consisted of beatings and public humiliation for transgressions, were employed on the entire population (Weightman).

In addition to field work and other duties that the residents were expected to undertake, planned recreation time and meetings made up the rest of daily life. As pressure from the outside increased, these meetings would become more of a central point of life at Jonestown. Throughout the day, Jones would make addresses on the public announcement (PA) system. During these addresses, he would discuss and interpret current events of the world and those which affected Peoples Temple. Given the lack of any other contact with the outside world, these announcements were often the sole source of news for the members. Peoples Temple settlement in Jonestown became increasingly isolated from the rest of the planet in the middle of a jungle, and existed in relative autonomy even from the Guyanese government (Hall).

As Peoples Temple adjusted to its new life in isolated Guyana, back in the United States some of those who had defected from the Temple, as well as family members of some Jonestown residents, had organized into a loose group known as the Concerned Relatives. The Concerned Relatives could best be described as a group united through their fervent desire to see Peoples Temple closed down and Jones taken out of power (Hall). Although they had many concerns about Peoples Temple, the Concerned Relatives focused on retrieving loved ones from the Peoples Temple settlement at Jonestown.

Although the methods of the group were diverse and personalized, this goal was generally realized through two approaches. The main way in which the Concerned Relatives impacted Peoples Temple was through a child custody suit involving former members Grace and Timothy Stoen. The child in question, John Victor Stoen, was likely conceived by Jones and Grace Stoen, and had been taken down to Jonestown with Jones and Timothy Stoen. Grace Stoen had defected from the Temple before the migration to Jonestown. The custody case arose after Timothy Stoen defected from Jonestown. The Stoens demanded that Jones allow them to retrieve their son. This child custody case would ultimately stagnate due to the difficulties of conducting such a case internationally and the lack of an extradition treaty between the US and Guyana. These conditions allowed Jones to ignore California court orders to appear in the United States, and allowed the Guyanese government to largely ignore arrest warrants for Jones and John Victor Stoen issued by the United States (Hall).

Although the custody case was largely unsuccessful, it had a great impact on Jones. This can be seen through his discussions of the case in meetings and in his daily announcements; the case also increased the lexicon of threats utilized by the Temple members and Jones.

Another strategy emerged from the Concerned Relatives that was ultimately more successful, involving the allegation that members of Peoples Temple were being held against their will. The Concerned Relatives used the US media, which was responding to the success of the New West magazine article by publishing sensationalistic accounts of Peoples Temple, in order to build popular support against the Jones. In addition, the Concerned Relatives sought the support of the US government through such measures as the affidavit prepared by Jonestown defector Deborah Blakely which was presented to the US Congress. This affidavit described the harsh conditions at Jonestown, and as described below, the repeated references to mass suicide made by the members and leadership of Peoples Temple (Reiterman).

The Concerned Relatives found the greatest promise in Leo Ryan, a U.S. Congressman from San Mateo, California, who was approached by members of the group in spring 1978. During the spring Ryan entered into a working alliance with the Concerned Relatives. This alliance culminated in a congressional fact finding delegation headed by Ryan in the fall of 1978. It would serve two purposes: to investigate the living conditions in Jonestown, and to offer a safe and official way for any members to defect (Hall).

While the Concerned Relatives in the United States were starting a process that would help determine the fate of those at Jonestown, descriptions of the threats that faced Peoples Temple and of Jim Jones changed once again in Guyana.

The threats that faced Peoples Temple in California were mainly related to a right wing takeover and a nuclear apocalypse. They usually were indirect and distant signs of danger and were more indicative of future events. The threats that faced Peoples Temple in the time it spent in Guyana became significantly more tangible, and they symbolized a direct and immediate threat to the lives of the members far more than they did in California. Gradually, all of the threats used in the vocabulary of Peoples Temple in Jonestown came to represent death in one form or another.

As stated above, the isolation of Jonestown allowed Jones and his leadership staff to control the sources of information that reached the residents. This control was used to disseminate information about threats both immediate and distant that faced Peoples Temple. The right wing takeover predicted back in California was made to appear as if it was accelerating. “Communards were told that…the Ku Klux Klan was marching in the open throughout San Francisco streets and that race wars had broken out across the country” (Weightman 1983).

The Concerned Relatives were discussed in a slightly different way, as an more immediate threat. Rumors about Concerned Relatives hiring mercenaries to violently raid the settlement (which was the actual intention of some relatives) led Jones to increasingly associate Concerned Relatives with death in his addresses and meetings. When describing the propaganda and plans of the Concerned Relatives in a meeting at Jonestown, Jones spoke of the relatives’ callous disregard for the lives of other community members in favor of their own kin:

They have turned so bad, that they say we are communist, we are degenerate, we are against Christ, and if we have to kill some of them and even some of the children, it’s worthwhile to save some other children. (Q313)

The amount of threats that were referenced by Jones and Temple members increased exponentially in Jonestown. A review of the meetings and speeches given at Jonestown reveals a pool of common threats or categories of threats. The Concerned Relatives posed a significant threat to Peoples Temple, which became more serious as the time went on in Guyana. There were threats related to the fate of members if they left Jonestown. These were threats that either represented the current state of affairs in the United States or the jungle surrounding the settlement. Outside Jonestown, there were concentration camps, emboldened hate groups, a world soon to be destroyed by a nuclear apocalypse and death by dangerous animals.

Another category of threats was related to U.S. power and imperialism, as represented by the U.S. government, and the CIA (and their trained mercenaries). In addition, the threat of a fascist takeover followed Peoples Temple from the United States; during Jonestown period the threat of the Guyanese government being overthrown by fascists emerged. Following this logic, the Guyanese Defense Forces (GDF) – as the military tool of the fascist Guyanese government – also became a threat. The GDF came to be referenced in the same manner as mercenaries or the CIA.

At the same time, Jones’ powers again shifted in their nature. As was mentioned earlier, throughout the history of Peoples Temple the way in which Jones described his power and the way that it was understood by his members changed. This usually correlated with geographical shifts. In Indianapolis, Jones was a preacher of God’s word; in California, Jones began transitioning from being a traditional preacher into being a deity in his own right. This transition was completed in Guyana. Jones’ use of religious symbolism or references to religion to justify his own powers ceased almost completely.

In Guyana, Jones not only dropped the use of religion but became openly contemptuous of any form of religious practice, and encouraged his followers to do the same. For example, during discussions of current events Jones often referenced revolutionaries whose potential was undermined by their belief in a religion. Jones and Temple leadership attempted to instill this rejection of religion in the members. Members were forced to mock Pentecostal preachers as public punishments (Feinsod), and they were forbidden to pray (Towne).

Instead of tracing his powers back to religious symbols, Jones described his powers as originating from himself. Jones claimed to be the living embodiment of socialism, which gave him the paranormal abilities that he had once ascribed to a gift of the spirit. Although Jones claimed to be the embodiment of socialism in California, it is more significant in Guyana as this claim coincides with the removal of religious language from his vocabulary. In Guyana, Jones was no longer a conduit to a great power, but the tangible, god-like realization of the power of socialism. As Jones remarked angrily in Jonestown (in reference to himself): “Why do you keep playing with that which men call God and we call socialism incarnate?” (Q050).

With his powers now emanating from no other source, Jones became the sole protector of Peoples Temple from the perceived dangers that faced them. Jones propagated the belief that Jonestown was protected from danger by “the benefit of a paranormal dimension that the Soviet Union is spending a million dollars a day to try to understand” (Q757). Physical ailments, bodily harm and even nuisances were believed to be prevented by the powers Jones received as a result of being the embodiment of Principal ^[2] (Chidester).

A discussion of how Jones represented his powers or the threats against Peoples Temple would be irrelevant without analyzing the extent to which his members believed and acted upon them. As Anne Kane states: “the correlation of a symbolic system with the material circumstances of a particular social group does not mean that the social group is actually motivated to action by the symbol system” (Kane 1991). The majority of the time that the able-bodied members spent in Jonestown was spent either working or sleeping. The meetings, which increased in frequency and length over the time Peoples Temple spent in Guyana, were the primary social outlet of the settlement. By analyzing the meetings and especially the participation by members, one can see the members of Peoples Temple accepting the perceived dangers as real and acting out opposition to those dangers.

In one meeting held just after Concerned Relatives staged a media event in front of the Peoples Temple church in San Francisco, Jones led a discussion on what members would like to do to those that defected from the Temple. In one striking example, Joel Cobb describes what he would like to do to his mother, father and son. “Okay, um, well, I'd like to do to Terri and Jim Cobb, I'd like to go back there… I'd like to um, tie a wire up to Jim Cobb's balls and just pull it off” (Q594). He goes on to discuss shooting his mother and his brother in the stomach. The Cobbs were deeply involved with the Concerned Relatives, and met with Ryan in the spring to discuss his delegation to Jonestown. Joel Cobb’s willingness to torture his own family indicates an acceptance of the danger that the Concerned Relatives represented.

A special type of meeting that emerged in Jonestown in the winter of 1978 deserves specific attention. These meetings were called during the various crises that occurred during the life of Peoples Temple in Jonestown and were called “White Nights.” The duration of such a meeting varied; it could last for just one night, or up to six days. During a White Night meeting, the threats that were understood to face Peoples Temple would become real and immediate. Members, acting on this perceived imminence, would treat the threats as tangible.

 The first White Night was in response to a specific action conducted by the Concerned Relatives. In October 1977, a lawyer representing the Stoens arrived in Georgetown, Guyana with a court order from the United States for John Stoen to be returned to Grace and Timothy Stoen, as well as an order for Jones to appear in court in the United States. That night Jones staged an assassination attempt on his own life. As members were gathered at the central pavilion of the settlement, they were informed that the Concerned Relatives had hired CIA trained mercenaries to attack the camp and seize the child John Victor. Over the next six days until the “all-clear” was given, members would position themselves at the edges of the clearing with weapons, ready to fight off what they perceived to be an imminent invasion (Feinsod).

White Nights would become an important part of life in Jonestown after this incident. More than just making threats appear to be imminent, White Nights also served the function of helping members associate their surroundings and events with the dangers that faced Peoples Temple. For example, one White Night was called specifically to deal with the fact that the American Medical Association (AMA) refused to certify the Jonestown doctor without first touring the facilities at Jonestown. While normally this incident might have been interpreted simply as hesitation on the part of the AMA to blindly certify doctors, the White Night meeting served it as attributable to the enemies of Jonestown. According to Jones, the trouble was to be blamed on capitalists, in that “The doctors are rising up, which a number of them are capitalist, and that’s why we’re not getting a license on our doctor” (Q643). Furthermore, and more threateningly, the AMA was allegedly infiltrated by the CIA, and the desire for the AMA to tour the facilities was understood as only a pretense for a CIA invasion.

The effect of this reasoning on members can be shown through the actions that they took during such meetings. Members arming themselves for six days or screaming into the jungle to frighten the mercenaries they believe to be lurking there, is indicative of members accepting the threat of immediate danger. In order for them to do so in the context of these White Night situations, the members must also have interpreted the events the meetings addressed as influenced by the threats that they perceived to face Peoples Temple.

The elevation of events like these to matters of life and death made Jones, with his heavily emphasized powers over death, appear to be the only solution to the problems that Peoples Temple encountered problems were seen as the result of enemies working against them. Often, Jones would present himself as the only solution to the specific problem that was being addressed with the White Night, “we’ve come through every White Night, and I’ve found a way through every White Night” (Q635).

Members’ understanding of Jones as the only solution to these issues can be seen in their willingness to follow Jones’ proposed solutions to the threats that faced them, and their belief that there were no other alternatives. Through the White Night rituals, the concept of revolutionary suicide reemerged, but this time outside of a private setting in group meetings. Revolutionary suicide, as Jones argued, was the only solution available to Peoples Temple in light of the threats that they faced. From its first mention, some discussion was necessary before the idea of revolutionary suicide was accepted by members. As Rhodes recalls:

Sometimes we’d talk fighting, and then he’d remind us that we couldn’t fight the Guyanese, and then other people would bring up various alternatives, but he’d just keeping shaking his head and ruling them all out for some reason or other (Weightman 1983).

Gradually, revolutionary suicide came to be commonly referenced by members inside and outside of White Night meetings as a solution to which they would inevitably resort. In some instances, the residents of Jonestown participated in “suicide drills,” in which they would practice mass suicide during White Night crisis meetings. In other instances, members would pledge themselves to committing revolutionary suicide. During these commitments, members would often refer to the threats and the situations that they perceived to be created by those threats. In one such meeting in October 1978, Temple member Michael Prokes refers to revolutionary suicide as the only response to specific threats: "because the conspiracy will not leave us alone to build, to serve and to live in peace, I have decided to commit revolutionary suicide, because I see no other viable alternative" (Q245).

While the people of Jonestown were accepting these drastic means by which to respond, the Concerned Relatives were poised to test their resolve by creating the most real and threatening event to occur to the Jonestown community. Congressman Leo Ryan, working with Concerned Relatives, had been preparing to make a fact-finding trip to Guyana for five months since he had first met with the relatives in May. Not discouraged by Jones’ refusal to grant him access to Jonestown, Ryan departed on November 15^th, 1978 with a delegation consisting of congressional staff, members of the press, and several Concerned Relatives hoping to convince their family members to leave with them (Hall).

The people of Jonestown dealt with Ryan’s impending arrival much as they dealt with other external events – by understanding Ryan only through the threats that they perceived. In different meetings and announcements in November, Jones linked Ryan to several different threats. In one such announcement, the Concerned Relatives relationship with Ryan was discussed by Jones over the PA system: "They [Concerned Relatives] are cooperating with Congressman [Leo] Ryan, who has voted sharply in racist terms and fascist terms, who is a supporter of [President Augusto] Pinochet of Chile" (Q323).

In another instance, Temple member Etta Thompson was recorded yelling “Yankees go home” (Q050), in reference to the imperialistic power of the United States during a discussion of the impending arrival of the delegation.

Before his arrival, Ryan was also accused of being a catalyst for a CIA invasion; an imperialist with powers as a result of the Monroe Doctrine; and the leader of defectors who were intending to murder the residents of Jonestown.

After touching down in Georgetown, Guyana, and dealing with hostile Temple staff in the capital city that were determined to stall them, the Ryan delegation eventually secured permission from Jones to visit the settlement. The delegation arrived on November 17^th, 1978. On the second day, November 18^th, the Ryan delegation attracted 16 people who wanted to defect from Jonestown. The visit was cut short after a Temple member attempted to stab Ryan, precipitating a rapid departure of the delegation and the Temple defectors. As the Ryan delegation waited to depart from a rural airstrip in Port Kaituma, six miles from Jonestown, they were ambushed by Temple security personnel that had followed them to the airstrip. In the resulting attack, five people, including Ryan and one defector from Jonestown, were killed (Hall).

Back in Jonestown, Jones initiated a White Night crisis meeting. Relaying information about the massacre that had recently unfolded in Port Kaituma, Jones reported that a retaliatory attack was imminent in the form of paratrooping Guyanese Defense Forces. Jones urged members in the pavilion to drink the poison that was being set out in front of them.

It's simple. It's simple. There's no convulsions with it. It's just simple. Just, please get it. Before it's too late. The GDF will be here, I tell you. Get movin', get movin', get movin' (Q042).

As they had practiced in suicide drills, members compliantly lined up and drank the poison offered to them. Seniors and children were also given poison, which arguably equates to murder, as it is questionable whether or not they understood the consequences. In addition, during the death ritual, members would take the microphone from Jones and offer their support. One member stated:

And the way the children are laying there now, I'd rather see them lay like that than to see them have to die like the Jews did, which was pitiful anyhow… Because, like Dad said, when they come in, what they're gonna do to our children – they're gonna massacre our children (Q042).

At the end of the day, 909 people lay dead in Jonestown. Their bodies were a testament to Jones’ final recorded words:

We didn't commit suicide, we committed an act of revolutionary suicide protesting the conditions of an inhumane world (Q042).

Literature Review

Many attempts have been made to explain the disaster at Jonestown and the behavior of the Peoples Temple members in the decades leading up to it. There are differing opinions on how a large group of people could have been convinced to commit suicide in such a manner. Some argue that it was a result of brainwashing – that, as a result of coercion and various forms of persuasion, the members of Peoples Temple had little agency in their decision (Singer). Others blame external pressure from the outside world that affected Peoples Temple. They view the disaster at Jonestown as a result of the increased pressure on the organization from groups such as the Concerned Relatives, the media, and, ultimately, Congressman Ryan’s delegation. In this argument, this pressure also happened to come at a time when the revolutionary fervor and apocalyptic worldview in the Temple was strong. These external pressures impacting the Temple led to the mass suicides, an act which was assisted by the internal dynamics of the group (Hall). Explaining what happened at Jonestown by focusing on external forces, and discounting Jones’ followers as brainwashed or coerced, fails to address the unique and significant relationship between the members of Peoples Temple and Jones. As others have pointed out, by neglecting the internal dynamics of the group, the experiences of the individual in Peoples Temple is lost (Maaga).

Charisma and Peoples Temple

This study endeavors to explain the fate of Peoples Temple as having been caused by charismatic leadership. In order for charismatic leadership to exist, there must be a unique bond of obligation between the leader and the led that is uncommon to other forms of leadership. Max Weber was the first to coin the phrase “bond of obligation,” and also was the first to popularize the term “charisma.” Charisma is important due to the extent to which it is different from other forms of power. Weber differentiated charisma from other types of authority through outlining a system of leadership which he called the “pure types of legitimate authority” (Weber). This system embodied different forms of authority: legal, rational, traditional and charismatic. According to Weber, legal authority is based upon a belief in the legitimacy of rules and the right of persons who occupy positions of authority in society to give orders based on those rules. In a system of rational authority, loyalty is owed to the established legal order and extends to the persons exercising that authority, but only by acknowledgment of that order. Traditional authority is based in a belief in the sacredness of traditions. In this case, loyalty is given to the person who occupies the traditional role of authority, but only due to the traditional obligation to do so. In the case of charismatic leadership, loyalty is given to the leader, that loyalty is related to the followers’ belief in the leaders’ abilities. Charisma, as used by Weber, applies to

a certain quality of an individual personality by virtue of which

he is set apart from ordinary men and treated as endowed with

supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional

powers or qualities (Weber).

Aside from differentiating charisma from the other forms of leadership, one of Weber’s most crucial conclusions regarded the nature of the relationship between the followers and the leader. This relationship, Weber asserted, is a unique bond of obligation that forms between a charismatic leader and his/her followers, in which both parties believe that it is the duty of the follower to recognize the quality of the leader and the mission (Weber). This differs from the concept of authority espoused by the traditional, legal or rational forms, as the authority of the charismatic leader is never dependent on election or heritage, but on the ability of the leader to instill this sense of obligation in his/her followers. 

The origination of this bond of obligation has been the focus of the bulk of research on the subject of charismatic leadership following Webers’ initial observations. This research is dominated by one main school of thought, which understands the bond of obligation between a follower and the leader as the result of social interactions. The phrase “social interactions” can be understood as the effects of society on a group of people or on interactions between people, institutions, or organizations. These social interactions can be understood as either external or internal to the leader and followers. Examples of external interactions include such things as the effects of moments of crisis in society, economic systems or changes in mainstream culture on a group. Internal social interactions include such things as group interactions, personality traits of the leader, or the relationship between the followers and the leader. Whether external or internal, the main body of work on charisma holds that these social interactions create the need for the led to follow the leader.

The purpose of this literature review is first to study this dominant group of thought regarding the formation of the charismatic bond, as well as limitations that are present in this work. Understanding this particular school of thought will provide a departure point from which to introduce a way of thinking about the phenomena. This new way of thinking represents a departure from the bulk of the literature. While showing the ways in which the new theory departs from the bulk of the literature, this review will show the ways in which the theory embodies elements of the existing literature.

The theory, created by Philip Smith, addresses the inability of the bulk of the literature to develop measures for charisma. Smith identifies a generic, measurable element of charisma that involves the importance of symbols. Symbols can be understood as either tangible or intangible things that represent something else, and are recognizable by most people. Smith believes that a generic element of charisma involves followers understanding leaders as the only solutions to symbols that represent perceived threats. This element has the potential to serve as a measurable indicator of charismatic leadership.

After the introduction of Smith’s theory, suggestions regarding how to strengthen this theory will be advanced. This new theory is important in that it serves to rectify some of the inconsistencies in research of charismatic authority. Specifically, these inconsistencies are the result of a lack of general measures by which to test for charisma.

The limitations of Smith’s arguments appear when Smith attempts to ground his theory in case studies of charismatic leaders. Smith is unable to reach the necessary depth in exploring how leaders portraying themselves as the only solution to specific threats affects the interpretations and actions of their followers. Smith’s theory needs a more careful examination of the experience and actions of followers. His theory must be grounded in a thorough case study of a charismatic leader and his/her followers in order for all of its aspects to be properly elucidated.

For this reason, this project will serve to ground Smith’s theory in an in-depth case study of the charismatic leadership of the Reverend Jim Jones and his relationship with the organization he led, Peoples Temple. This application of Smith’s theory will test its core arguments by how followers interpret the symbols, which enable the formation of a charismatic bond.

The Focus on Social Interactions

The bulk of the literature regarding charisma is very diverse; however, diverse as the literature is, it has some common themes. One of these is the denial or downplaying of the role that symbols play in the formation of charismatic authority. When the presence of symbols in a charismatic relationship is mentioned in the bulk of the literature, it is described as merely a creative response to prevailing social situations. Another theme of the literature is the primacy given to the role that social interactions, whether internal or external, play in the formation of charismatic authority. In short, the bulk of the literature asserts the superiority of social interactions over the use and understanding of symbols by the leader and the led.

Charisma as the Result of Internal Social Interactions

Within the literature regarding charisma, some have opined that the charismatic bond of obligation is formed through the personality traits of the leader and through the ways the leader utilizes those traits during the course of interpersonal interactions (Conger, McClelland, Hoffman and Hoffman, Schlucter). These arguments focus almost entirely on the role that internal social interactions play.       

According to some, these traits can elicit a specific emotional response that creates a bond of obligation between the led and the leader. The argument follows that this bond is the result of the leader empowering his followers through different methods (Conger, McClelland). This argument focuses on group interactions – that is, on internal social interaction between the leader and the led. Jay Conger has asserted that an intense bond can be formed between a leader and a follower that can result in the follower’s perception of self-worth being defined by his/her relationship with the leader. He argues that the connection of the follower’s self-efficacy is the result of a specific process. This process involves the leader developing and articulating a vision, building confidence in his/her followers abilities, and empowering those followers. Conger found that this process creates a bond of obligations between follower and leader through a cycle in which the follower becomes reliant upon the empowering praise of the leader to determine self worth. This leads followers to seek more praise through pledging themselves to follow the leader (Conger).

David McClelland has also examined the process by which empowerment can create a bond of obligation. McClelland’s analysis differs from Conger in that he chose to focus on different styles of leadership in order to show the benefits of charismatic leadership. McClelland attributes charismatic power to a leader who empowers audiences to be confident, and locates the formation of the charismatic bond in the ability of the leader to do so (McClelland). He justifies his findings by explaining the merits of this approach in comparison to more examples of non-charismatic authority that utilizes more forceful, coercive methods. McClelland and Conger use similar arguments to explain how charismatic leadership forms from a process of empowerment. Conger focuses on a process which utilizes empowerment and explains how that process creates a bond due to the followers’ sense of self-worth becoming intertwined with the leader. Similarly, McClelland focuses on how empowering followers can create a bond of obligation between followers and their leader. Both McClelland and Conger relied on individual followers perceptions of leaders (obtained through interviews) in their research to determine if a leader was charismatic. As their results are derived from the subjective perceptions of followers, it difficult to use the findings derived from their studies to investigate other cases of leadership for signs of charismatic authority.

Much research that focuses on internal social interactions to explain the formation of charismatic authority does so without any reference to the phenomena of empowerment. In the study of charismatic leadership, some researchers focus on the ways in which a leader interacts with a group of people. For some, the way a leader addresses the concerns of a group of people, or the ways in which a leader utilizes oratorical abilities are significant (Lindholm). In a study of Charles Manson and his following – known as “The Family” – Lindholm explains the effect that alienation of the youth from society in the mid-to-late 60’s had on Manson’s followers. This explanation is also coupled with a description of Manson’s oratorical abilities and his specific indoctrination program, which served to draw people to him in a tightly-knit community with well-defined boundaries from the mainstream world. However, there does not appear to be a clear link between Manson’s leadership style and the effects of an alienating society. Although Lindholm describes both, he does not show how Manson’s leadership was interpreted and acted upon by his followers. Therefore, while Manson’s leadership style corresponds with the needs of his followers, there is no clear link between the two factors.

Charisma as the Result of External Social Interactions

While some researchers believe that the formation of charismatic leadership is dependent on the ways in which leaders utilize their personality traits in internal social interactions, others believe the leaders’ use of personality traits is less relevant than how their followers perceive those traits. This perception is shaped by the effects of external social interactions. In other words, some studies hold that leaders’ charismatic authority is decided by their followers’ perception of them as capable to address issues that face society. This belief privileges the effect of external social interactions on leaders and their followers. Such an argument was made through a specific case study of Charles DeGaulle by Hoffman and Hoffman. In this study, DeGaulle was found to have portrayed himself in a manner that made him appear most useful in periods of emergency. Specifically, DeGaulle was able to embody vague concepts such as sacrifice, duty, responsibility and prophecy. This made him most salient as a leader to the French during periods when French society was in crisis. When French society was not in a crisis mentality, DeGaulle’s perceived relevance was found to drop dramatically. Hoffman and Hoffman argued that, in order for DeGaulle to maintain his charismatic authority, he was forced to keep French society in a state of crisis (Hoffman and Hoffman). Other researchers have come to similar conclusions by also finding that charismatic leadership can only emerge when society is experiencing periods of material or inner crisis (Schlucter).

Analyses which state that charismatic authority depends on followers’ perception of the leader in relation to a specific crisis are lacking in some regards. Although studies may give examples of leaders being perceived to possess traits relevant to a society in crisis, they are unable to show that that leader is understood to be the only solution to that crisis. In other words, while the leader may have traits that correspond with the specific crises, this type of study is unable to show that it is only those specific traits that encourage a bond of obligation between the led and the leader. In order to determine that the perception of a leader as a crisis solution is the only factor encouraging such a bond, it would be necessary to examine the elements that the led interpret as indicators of a crisis. An understanding of those elements would allow one to determine if the leader was seen as the only solution to those elements of crisis.

Attempts to Create Measures for Charisma Within the Social Interaction Camp

The inconsistencies in the way that “charisma” is used and defined have led some who privilege the importance of social interactions to attempt to develop measures for charisma (Friedland). William Friedland attempted to develop “clear-cut indices of charisma” in order to address this problem, and found three such indicators. The first indicator appears when the leader is able to articulate the repressed, shared beliefs of the group of people whom he/she is addressing. The second indicator requires that the leader must be risking harm by articulating these beliefs. The third indicator stipulates that the leader must also create a successful movement that acts on these shared beliefs (Friedland). Friedland’s indices are based on the belief that external social interactions, such as the shared beliefs in the culture of the society, explain the emergence of charismatic authority.

This attempt to create objective measures of charisma has some flaws that can be seen in later work that was fashioned around these indicators. In a study of union leaders, Thomas Dow presented these leaders as charismatic due to his perception of them as having reached the aforementioned indices. The union leaders appealed to the concepts of freedom and independence, at great risk to themselves, with an ultimate success in realizing their goals (Dow).

Although Dow may have shown adherence to Friedland’s set of guidelines, some shortcomings emerged in his argument. Following the measures, Dow described the leaders’ appeals to freedom and independence as their charismatic legitimacy, which drew great levels of support. The primary focus of the research was on what the leaders were stating; however, there was little evidence of what the statements of the leaders meant to the followers. Although there was evidence presented in Dow’s work that showed the abilities of the union leaders to draw a crowd, a more thorough analysis of the extent to which the statements made by the leaders affected the crowd members is necessary to describe the leaders as charismatic. This can be done through reviewing the symbolic nature of elements in the leaders’ statements and determining if they had significance through how their followers interpreted them. Without analyzing what the leaders were saying and how that was received by their audience, it is not possible to determine if the relationship between the leader and led was charismatic.

A review of the literature that gives primacy to social interactions reveals shortcomings that appear in the work. These are the inability to adequately explain why the leader appealed so strongly to their followers; why the leader appeared to be the only solution to followers that felt threatened, and the inability of the literature to develop general measures by which charismatic leadership may be tested. Focusing solely on social interactions excludes a key element of charismatic leadership that could more thoroughly explain those interactions. A relatively new branch of research on charisma has emerged that addresses these shortcomings by incorporating the importance of symbols into the discussion of charismatic leadership.

The Dual Focus on Social Interactions and Symbolic Meanings

This new body of research presents an understanding of how the bond of obligation is formed. This bond is not solely a product of internal or external social interactions. This recent research serves to bring attention to the significant role that the use and interpretation of symbols plays in the formation of a bond of obligation. The attention to symbols is based on the belief that their role in the formation of charismatic authority is as important as the role of external or internal social interactions. More specifically, in internal social interactions, leaders portray themselves to their followers as either exemplifying or opposing certain symbols in order to build charismatic authority (Smith, Willner). The choice of these symbols will depend on their relevance to external social forces that impact followers and the leader – for example, an economic depression. If there is a change in the external social forces that impact the led and the leader, there will be a change in the symbols utilized by the leader.

Understanding the Importance of Symbols

The understanding of symbols as an equally important factor in the formation of charismatic authority represents a departure from the normal understanding of charismatic leadership. However, it is grounded in elements from pre-existing research conducted on charismatic leadership and the historical importance of symbols. There has been work published that suggests that the use and interpretation of symbols is always a determinative power in events (such as the formation of a charismatic bond) but the degree to which symbol usage affects events varies. In order to properly understand the significance that the use of symbols has in a specific case, it is necessary to identify the symbolic structure. “Symbolic structure” refers to the way symbols are represented and interpreted, including the rituals that allow symbols to lead to action. In order for a symbol structure to inspire action, it must first be incorporated into a ritual. When structures are incorporated into rituals, followers are able to act out the symbols that are presented to them by their leader. Followers interpret these symbols as tangible after using them in rituals. This structure shapes the way people think and interpret events, and the acceptance of this structure by followers motivates their actions (Kane).

 Understanding such a structure must be coupled with examining the way this structure interacts with, and is affected by, outside social forces. When attempting to explain why charismatic authority emerged in a historical case, it is important to flesh out not only the symbol structure but also the interactions that the structure had with external social forces. These social forces could be as broad as an emergence of a counter-cultural movement or a time of social unrest. Showing these interactions ensures that the symbol structure is actually relevant to the experiences that the followers have with the world outside of their relationship with the leader; that is, the “identification of a symbolic system [structure] does not mean that the latter is a determinative structure on the specific historical processes being examined” (Kane). If the symbolic structure is not relevant to the follower’s experiences with the outside world, its use will not lead to the emergence of charismatic authority. By understanding the interactions between symbolic structures and larger social forces that surround them, it is possible to gauge the effects created by a leader’s use of symbols and the followers’ interpretations of those symbols (Kane). In the case of charismatic authority, this effect would refer to the emergence of a bond of obligation between the followers and the leader.

The Importance of Evil Symbols

The type of symbols that are used by the leader affects the outcome that the use of symbols by a leader will produce. If the leader is to gain charismatic authority, she/he must represent a solution to what those symbols represent by portraying themselves as in opposition to those symbols (Smith). If leaders portray themselves as opposing certain symbols, those symbols must represent evil, not good. The importance of evil threatening symbolism to charismatic leadership is supported by work which recognizes the necessity of creating tangible evils in order to create a loyal following. Evil threats, especially when external to a group, serve to unite a community. In this manner, evil symbols have an ability to unite several different groups together against a common external threat, whether real or imagined (Hoffer). The perception of a leader as the only solution to these threats unites these groups of people to that leader. Work that examines the charismatic authority of shamans shows that, when a leader’s perceived abilities are relevant to threats that face the people, they will follow that leader by forming a bond of obligation (Lewis). The shaman’s abilities allow the shaman to “incorporate potentially dangerous spirits into his own body, thus neutralizing or mastering them” (Lewis). This gives the shaman charismatic authority due to the threatening nature of the spirits that he confronts. An interpretation of Weber also supports the importance of threatening symbols. It holds that charismatic leadership is buttressed by the belief that the leader is the only solution to extraordinary situations which have been determined to be threatening through the presence of evil symbols (Bendix).

The Importance of Binary Oppositions for Charismatic Leaders

By presenting themselves as a solution to threats, leaders portray themselves as a symbol of good. As stated above, for leaders to become charismatic, they must present themselves as opposing evil. This creates a binary opposition of good and evil involving the leaders and the threats that they oppose. Binary oppositions of good and evil are common in society. Durkheim has stated that all of society is divided into such oppositions: “things are above all sacred or profane, pure or impure, friends or enemies, favourable or unfavourable” (Durkheim and Mauss). When leaders position themselves as countering threatening symbols, they are, in effect, defining themselves as the solution to those symbols by creating a binary opposition of good and evil.

This belief is supported by other researchers, who recognized that the use of binary oppositions of good and evil allows leaders to exercise control over their followers’ interpretations of situations (Mills). When people understand themselves as following a leader who is the solution to evil threats, and accept the symbols that represent the threats as real, they develop a uniform way of understanding (Geertz). When this understanding is created by the recognition of a leader as a solution to threatening symbols, that leader is able to develop charismatic authority (Tiraykian).

Attempts to Create Measures for Charisma Within the Dual Focus Camp

When considering the role symbols play in the formation of charismatic authority, it is important to note that symbols are often used in recognizable ways by charismatic leaders during internal or external social interactions (Smith, Willner). In other words, there may be a specific way that leaders must position themselves in relation to other symbols in order to develop charismatic authority. The presence of this specific method of symbol use might serve as a measure for charisma. The development of such a measure would allow one to test cases of leadership for charismatic authority by viewing how the leader uses symbols and what the effects of that usage are.

A theory created by Philip Smith integrates this concept with elements of the bulk of literature regarding charisma. Smith’s theory of charismatic leadership is another step in the path to understanding the role that symbol structures play in charismatic leadership. Smith maintains that the charismatic bond is as much a result of symbol structures as it is of internal and external social interactions. Smith also focuses on the importance of threats and the ability of the leader to appear as a solution to those threats.

In the emphasis that he places on the use of threatening symbols, Smith represents a new progression in research on charismatic authority. Traditionally, charisma was understood as a result of the positive personality traits of the leader, or of the positive merits of the leader’s mission that appealed to followers. The role of threatening symbolism was largely overlooked. The exclusion of this element of the formation of charismatic bonds has led, in Smith’s opinion, to the neglect of half of the reason a charismatic leader appeals to followers. Smith asserts that the appeal of the charismatic leader does not rest in the desirable qualities of the leader’s mission. Instead, Smith argues that the evils that the charismatic leader confronts are more important than the ideals the leader exemplifies. Smith believes that the bond between the leader and the led is affected strongly by threats. He argues that the bond is a result of the belief that the fate of society relies on the ultimate worth of the leader (Smith).

By entering into a binary opposition with evil, the leader is perceived as a solution to threats. In addition, this understanding affects the way followers uniformly interpret current external events. This interpretation is affected by the perception of the world being composed of threats and of the leader as the only solution to those threats (Smith). This uniform interpretation of events causes the followers to follow an action strategy that ultimately results in the formation of a bond of obligation to the leader.

In short, the theory created by Phillip Smith argues that charismatic authority results when a leader is portrayed as the only possible solution to specific threats. In addition, those specific threats and the understanding of a leader as the only solution to those threats must affect the way followers interpret their surroundings in a uniform manner.

Furthermore, according to Smith, in order to accurately label a leader as charismatic, the threats, the idea of the leader as a solution to those threats, and the followers’ interpretations of their surroundings must be utilized by the followers to form a strategy for action. This strategy must be relevant to the threats; to the idea of the leader as solution; and to the followers’ interpretation of their surroundings. The strategy must also serve to create of a bond of obligation to that leader.

Methodology

Philip Smith provides several measures for charismatic leadership. These are the presence of threats; the portrayal of the leader as the only solution to those threats; events and surroundings as interpreted by those threats, and relevant strategies for action amongst the followers, which ultimately creates a bond of obligation to the leader. I utilize these measures as they pertain to Peoples Temple through a content analysis of the primary documents left behind by the organization. Specifically, these primary documents will be in the form of audiocassette tapes, which document the sermons, meetings, and miscellaneous events that occurred during the 23-year history of the Temple. These tapes were transcribed by Fielding McGehee III, the primary researcher at the Jonestown Institute, who obtained them from the F.B.I. through Freedom of Information Act requests. These tapes show the various ways Jones defined his powers and the threats facing the Temple, as well as the effect that those definitions had on Jones’ followers.

Preliminary Review of Transcripts

An initial review of these tapes will allow the identification of the vocabulary of Peoples Temple. This vocabulary consists of the specific threats that were perceived to face the Temple and the specific ways that Jones referred to his powers, Peoples Temple, or Jonestown. This vocabulary also includes the ways that members express the belief that events affecting the Temple were caused by threats, as well as the rituals practiced within the Temple. An understanding of this vocabulary will allow for the interpretation of findings to be discussed below.

Sampling Plan

After the preliminary review it will be necessary to revisit the tape transcripts of Peoples Temple, focusing on a specific sample of those transcripts. This sample consists of sermons and meetings from the three distinct phases of Peoples Temple. This sample includes two sermons delivered by Jim Jones to a congregation of Peoples Temple members from the Indianapolis period of Peoples Temple’s existence. These sermons will both be from the year 1957. The sample includes nine sermons delivered by Jim Jones to a congregation of Peoples Temple members from the California period of Peoples Temple’s existence. These sermons span the years of 1972 to 1976, with two sermons from 1972, three sermons from 1973, three sermons from 1974, and one sermon from 1976. After Peoples Temple migrated to Guyana, Jones ceased delivering formal sermons. Jones’ interactions with his followers were primarily through large group meetings which he led, known as “Peoples Rallies.” Eventually, a second type of meeting emerged, crisis meetings known as “White Nights.” These meetings occur during the final 16 months of Peoples Temple’s existence, from 1977 to 1978. Additionally, nine meetings from the time period that Peoples Temple spent in Jonestown, Guyana will be included in the sample.

Transcriptions from sermons that were given to congregations not composed of Peoples Temple members were not included in the sample, as Jones appears to modify both the content and style of his sermon when he is speaking to an audience of strangers. Transcripts selected from the period while Peoples Temple was in Jonestown, when the phenomenon of White Night meetings was occurring, involve an equal amount of non-crisis meetings and crisis meetings. This is important in order to determine if actions agreed upon during White Nights were referenced outside of a crisis meeting. The transcripts in the sample are selected from sermons or meetings that do not deviate from the “standard operating procedures” of the Temple. That is, the researcher identified transcripts that appeared to be from typical Temple gatherings. The transcripts that did not follow the typical structure of Peoples Temple meetings or sermons were discarded. This was done to ensure that the transcripts selected were representative of the majority of the Temple gatherings.

The samples are divided into three distinct periods of the Temple. These periods are marked by the geographic location of the Temple. Less importance was placed on obtaining a uniform amount of tapes per year of Temple history than was per period of Temple history. Clearly there are far fewer tapes from Indiana than there are from the California or Guyana periods. Only two tapes were selected from the Indianapolis time period, which spanned nine years. This is due to the limited availability of transcripts from that era, and the physical disintegration of the audiocassettes over the decades between their creation and the time of my study. I will be studying an equal amount of transcripts from Guyana as I will from California, although the California era lasted for 12 years and the Guyana era only 16 months.

A review of the tape transcripts from California show a gradual transition in Jones’ career, a time period characterized by repetition of common themes that slowly change. The 16 months that Peoples Temple spent in Guyana was quite the opposite, as threats came to be rapidly introduced, with their definitions fluctuating which had an effect on the members’ perceptions of events. This period of rapid change is indicative of the significantly increased internal and external pressure on the Temple after the migration to Guyana.

Data Collection and Method of Analysis

During the review of the sermons and meetings contained in the sample, the amount of times each threat in the vocabulary of the Temple is mentioned by Jones or the members during sermons or meetings will be recorded. The references will be recorded by statement. The ways in which Jones refers to his powers will be recorded and each specific ref