The C Word

The Dynamic Relationship Between Peoples Temple History and the Term Cult

[Editor’s Note: David Guo and Lucien Rosado-Soto wrote this paper for Prof. Alexandra Prince’s class on Peoples Temple and Jonestown at Skidmore College in the Spring of 2025.]

Introduction

In the aftermath of the Jonestown tragedy on November 18, 1978, the term cult would become a dominant label attached to Peoples Temple that has since shaped how the group is remembered in the public eye. But how did cult, a once neutral term used to describe religious worship and reverence, come to carry connotations of brainwashing and violence? Furthermore, why was Peoples Temple, a sociopolitical movement that fought for equal rights and social justice, so swiftly labelled a cult and subsequently condemned in public discourse? And finally, what is the relationship between Peoples Temple’s legacy and the cult word? As we trace both the shifting meaning and perception of cult and Peoples Temple, we find that the relationship between the two is far from one-sided. Therefore, rather than a unidirectional relationship between Peoples Temple and the usage of the word cult, we suggest that Peoples Temple and the White Night massacre actively changed dominant perceptions and associations with the term. Moreover, the lasting effects of the cult label—perpetuated by media framing—have had a debilitating impact on howthe stories of Peoples Temple members are remembered, reducing a complex history into a one-dimensional narrative of mass manipulation and violent tragedy.

The Etymology and Evolution of Cult

The term cult has not always carried the pejorative connotations it holds today. Derived from the Latin word cultus, meaning “care, cultivation, worship, and reverence,”[1] the word originally signified religious devotion rather than social deviance. Yet the word would not see popular use until the early to mid-20th century through the sociology of religion, where scholars used it neutrally to classify small, emerging religious groups that existed outside mainstream religious institutions and practices. Sociologist James Richardson in 1978 described cults as “…a small informal group lackinga definite authority structure… often possessing a somewhat charismatic leader or group of leaders…and deriving its inspiration and ideology from outside the predominant religious culture.”[2] However, the term’s usage began to shiftquickly following this definition in both scholarly and public discourse. Definitions after the 1970s increasingly emphasized themes of mind control, authoritarianism, indoctrination, and mental health, transforming a once neutral academic term into a stigmatizing label used to discredit unfamiliar religious movements.[3]

What makes these more recent definitions particularly problematic is the inherent ideological and emotional bias. Religious groups that were once merely seen as unconventional were now portrayed as threatening, irrational, or violent. This shift in tone, as Richardson noted, reflects not an objective definition but rather “a list of things which some interest groups in our society do not like… becoming a ‘social weapon’ to use against groups which are not viewed with favor.”[4] Therefore, usage of cult served to reinforce dominant religious practices in Western culture and delegitimize unfamiliar ones.

This semantic shift can largely be attributed to the broader political and social conditions of the mid-20th century America. During the Cold War era, fears of communism, treason, and social unrest were widespread amongst the general public. These anxieties, spurred by the Second Red Scare and McCarthyism, would be further exacerbated during the rise of new religious movements in the 1960s and 70s. The emergence of unfamiliar groups such as the Unification Church or the Church of Scientology would cause alarming reactions from concerned outsiders, as these groups and their practices fell outside the recognizable Western religions.[5] This disruption of norms and expectations among the public consequently lead to paranoia and uncertainty about the true intentions of these groups and whether or not they posed a danger to society.[6] These fears would ultimately manifest in the form of a reactionary anti-cult movement in the early 1970s, consisting largely of parents and family membersconcerned about their children joining such non-conventional religious groups.[7] Networks within the anti-cult movement thus served as a space for collective anxieties to be legitimized and mobilized on a national scale, reigniting fears lingering from the second Red Scare amongst the public and reframing new religious movements as dangerous organizations.

The anti-cult movement’s growing influence would eventually solidify the image of groups from being spiritually unfamiliar to socially deviant or threatening. Thus, by the time of the Jonestown tragedy, the term cult had become heavily stigmatized in the public eye with connotations of brainwashing, mass manipulation, and violence. This shift in perception therefore was not merely the result of a single catastrophic event, but rather the culmination of decades of changing political and cultural contexts within society. Moreover, the transition of scholarly definitionsof cult only served to legitimize these associations, reaffirming public fears whilst providing academic justification for labelling groups like Peoples Temple as cults. This combination of sociopolitical fears and scholarly discourse created the conditions for the term cult to become not just a label, but a social weapon that would come to shape and constrain the legacy of Peoples Temple.

Peoples Temple

Primarily known for the 1978 mass death, called the “White Night”, Peoples Temple originated in Indianapolis in1954. The founder, Reverend Jim Jones, started out studying to be a methodist preacher and gained more followers through the combined ideas of socialism and pentecostal worship. He promoted the inclusion of all races in his church, and increasingly used his personal religious worldview in his sermons as Peoples Temple grew. In Emerson Maureen Stuckart’s thesis “Never Heard A Man Speak Like This Before”: Reverend Jim Jones and Peoples Temple, she writes “Central to the message was acceptance of all individuals, regardless of race. Rev. Jones intended to bring individuals to the church by Pentecostalism, but hoped to keep them there to hear his message of racial equality. However, as the church grew in numbers, Rev. Jones began to adapt the religious worldview of his particular variety of Pentecostalism.”[8] The ideas behind Jim Jones’ preaching ultimately attracted a largely black audience, with Peoples Temple becoming involved in the civil right’s movement as a testament to their values of racial acceptance. Jim Jones and Peoples temple began to receive more media coverage in news articles, especially because of the 1960’s-70’s being a time period for new religious movements in the United States.[9] Their move to California signified a change in the Temple’s size and efforts and the coming of more media coverage.

In San Francisco California, Peoples Temple had a larger following than back in Indiana, and was more involved in social services as well as some local politics. In Peoples Temple and Jonestown in the Twenty-First Century, author Rebecca Moore writes “Members developed programs to help poor people through the welfare system and committed themselves to communal living and housing, with perhaps one hundred members donating their entire paycheck in exchange for room, board, healthcare coverage, and modest expenses. Some simply sharedhousing owned by the Temple itself. Members served their own, assisting those who were incarcerated (or, more frequently, whose relatives were incarcerated), providing healthcare services to the elderly, and offering free legal advice on evictions, divorces, and, on occasion, criminal cases. They also helped the wider community by participating in coalition movements and, to a limited extent, local politics.”[10] Moore highlights how Peoples Temple was able to provide more services to the local community, a sign that it was onto larger things by the time they moved to California. Their ability to help underprivileged people at no cost indicates that the temple had more resources at this point in time, and more members. Their efforts garnered positive exposure from the media at times. The existence of communal housing owned by the Temple shows a shift further towards their eventual goal of having their own society. Peoples Temple shifted towards a more communism focused goal of creating a self-sustainingutopia and eventually relocated to Jonestown, Guyana.[11] In the context of a Cold War America, Peoples Temple was more controversial in the eyes of the Government and media, a reason for starting a new society.

Members of Peoples Temple created Jonestown, a self-sustained agricultural community where the majority ofmembers lived together. During the construction of Jonestown and its early stages, people in the temple were more optimistic about the success of it. However, they faced challenges with food and resource availability, and members became increasingly worried about their own safety in Jonestown.[12] The temple’s positive attitude towards communism was more overt in the 70’s, and the movement became increasingly controversial. Jim Jones told members about potential threats to their safety, which was a factor in many Peoples Temple members willingly partaking in the mass death occurring on November 18th. A total of 918 people died on November 18th, including children as a significant portion of the deaths, who did not consent to partake in the “White Night.”[13] Although the events taking place on November 18th make up only a small part of the story of Peoples Temple, the mass loss of life became the most covered subject surrounding Peoples Temple.

Media narratives and how Jonestown influenced the usage of cult

Prior to the White Night, the portrayal of Peoples Temple was more diverse in nature, even highlighting positive contributions by the group. Articles about Peoples Temple lacked any association with the word cult or any othersimilar descriptions before the mass death. There also was much less media coverage overall, with articles about Peoples Temple primarily existing outside of the front page or spotlight. Some news articles portrayed PeoplesTemple as generous. For example, 1975 Los Angeles Sentinel article “Temple Brotherhood Goes to Disneyland” discusses the groups plan for the majority of its members to visit Disneyland, for the sake of providing an opportunity for underprivileged people in Peoples Temple to experience a fun time at the amusement park. It concludes by acknowledging American inequality and describing the efforts of Peoples Temple as a hopeful reminder of the existence of an equal group. The author writes “The Disneyland venture of Peoples Temple, however, symbolized as well as demonstrated in a concretefashion, the possibility of a true and living ‘brotherhood of man’ with equality for all.”[14] The final thoughts of the article highlight the positive outlook on Peoples Temple at the time, and also indicates hope for future accomplishments and positive contributions. The group was depicted in a way that starkly contrasts with the narratives published only 3 years later following the mass death. Other articles mention Peoples Temple as a source of hope for struggling people. The 1976 Los Angeles Sentinel article “Peoples Temple Attracts Heroin Addicts, Youth” describes how people dealing with drug addiction and other struggling groups found solace in Peoples Temple.

Additionally, the news article describes other social services provided by the temple, mentioning housing for the elderly and food supplies for underprivileged people. The author writes, “Many drug addicts, senior citizens, young people, some with needs and some with talents to give, have found inspiration at Peoples, from the pastor and the members.”[15] Jim Jones and Peoples Temple’s positive characterization is significant in this article because it demonstrates how Peoples Temple was beneficial to local communities, not just members of the group. It is far from the “murderous cult” description that people associate with Peoples Temple following the White Night, and in thepresent day. These often overlooked narratives can be used to understand some of the motivations behind Peoples Temple actions in the United States. However, some pre-White Night coverage on Peoples Temple was not exactly positive.

As events in the Peoples Temple history drew closer to the mass death in Jonestown, attitudes towards PeoplesTemple in the media were less positive despite the fact that they still had not received the cult label. Articles addressed controversies surrounding the group without portraying them in a one-dimensional way. Los Angeles Times article “L.A. Couple Sue Religious Leader: Coerced into Selling Home, They Allege in $18 Million Suit” describes two former Peoples Temple members who sued Jim Jones for “extorting” them to sell their home with proceeds going to the group.

The Concerned Relatives, a group of former members and relatives of current members, characterized the methods used by Jim Jones as violent and manipulative. Jim Jones’ political influence before Jonestown, and the uncertainty surrounding what life was like at Jonestown is also mentioned. The author describes the accusations made by the Concerned Relatives by stating “In a series of affidavits and a petition the group accused Jim Jones of building hispower through fear, fraud, physical beatings, appropriation of parishioners’ property and ‘mind programming.’”[16]The claims made by the Concerned Relatives show a new side of Peoples Temple media coverage. Contrary to earlier articles, this report presents the idea that Jim Jones used violence and manipulation to gain a following instead of through charisma, social services, and outreach to marginalized groups. Another Los Angeles Times article titled “Junket to Jungle May Not Be Welcome,” published days before the white night in November 1978, discussed congressman Leo Ryan’s impending visit to Guyana, mentioning the same claims as a reason for why Peoples Temple migrated to Jonestown. The article states “Last year Jones quit as head of the San Francisco Housing Authority and moved to Guyana with a group of his followers. The action came after several former temple members were quoted in reports as saying Jones staged fake healings, arranged beatings of temple members and fostered high-pressure, money-raising efforts.”[17] Controversies surrounding Jim Jones and the Temple are shown to be the catalyst for their journey into Guyana. Rather than just being used as a negative label for Jim Jones and his followers, they are an indication of Peoples Temple becoming further alienated from American society and choosing to leave. The idea that the article is still providing some nuance to their depiction of Peoples Temple is further supported by the inclusion of Jones’ former political influence as a significant point. While media coverage of Peoples Temple leading up to the mass death was more similar to the negative portrayal of post-White Night articles, it still hadn’t reached cult territory yet. The presentation of Peoples Temple in these works also lacked the same sensationalism surrounding negative descriptions of the Temple.

Following the White Night on November 18, 1978, there quickly was a huge increase in media coverage aboutwhat occurred at Jonestown. The articles published placed an emphasis on violence, murder, and the manipulation of Peoples Temple members by Jim Jones. They were one-dimensional and dramatic in nature, lacking coverage on the group’s core values, positive contributions or anything relating to the reasons that caused people to join. One of the more widely circulated works about Peoples Temple following the mass death was TIME Magazine’s December 1978 cover article “Cult of Death: The Jonestown Nightmare”.

The report calls Peoples Temple a cult stating, “All week long, a horrified world marveled at new details of the slaughter and new mysteries about Jones’ cult,”[18] and calls its members a part of a sadistic ritual of death. TIME Magazine depicts first encounters with the aftermath of the White Night and emphasizes the tragedy and horror of the mass death through its use of intense language, stating, “The scene below him was one of almost unimaginable carnage. In an appalling demonstration of the way in which a charismatic leader can bend the minds of his followers with a devilish blend of professed altruism and psychological tyranny, some 900 members of the California-based Peoples Temple died in a self-imposed ritual of mass suicide and murder.”[19] From TIME Magazine’s perspective,the story of Peoples Temple is a catastrophic sequence of events defined by manipulation and violence, ending in a huge loss of life. The work downplays the significance of Peoples Temple’s mission to create a socio-economically equal society in Jim Jones’ rise to power. It instead explains Jim Jones’ ability to gain a following as the manipulation of gullible people by stating, “Psychiatrists and other experts on group psychology and mind-control techniques offered rational explanations of how humans can be conditioned to commit such irrational acts. Yet the stories told by those whosurvived were both fearsomely fascinating and ultimately inexplicable. How could such idealistic, if naive, people set out to build an idyllic haven from modern society’s many pressures and turn it into a hellish colony of death?”[20] TIME Magazine puts the blame on Peoples Temple members for being coerced into the movement, and simultaneously claims they were victims of mind control. This description of Peoples Temple members strips them of their own autonomy while still putting them on the receiving end of backlash from the public. The gravity of TIME Magazine’s portrayal is better put into perspective by the fact that the majority of Americans knew about the Jonestown tragedy, and that millions of people read TIME Magazine. The widespread audience who consumed theworks of TIME Magazine and others were exposed to the association of cults with violence and manipulation, and Peoples Temple.

The same trends in association between Peoples Temple and cult can be seen in other works published around the same time. With the sensation of the Jonestown tragedy came an increase in the usage of cult as a description for Peoples temple and other groups with the capability of violence and blind loyalty to maniacal leadership. This also translated to fears of similar tragedies occurring from the formation and acts of other cults. Forexample, Daily Mail article “Jonestown Massacre victims among cremated remains found at Delaware funeral home decades after 1978 mass suicide: police” mentions difficulties with the burial of the deceased Temple members.[21]

Author Nicole Hensley describes how members’ bodies remained at Dover Air Force Base after being transportedthere because they were waiting on subsequent burial arrangements by Peoples Temple, and did not want to bury themnear a military base due to the suspected threat of cultists trying to disturb the site. She writes, “The bodies sat for months waiting for the People’s Temple to arrange for the bodies to be shipped back to California on trucks because state politicians did not want a mass burial anywhere near Dover out of fear of attracting more cultists, wire reportsfrom 1978 and ’79 show.”[22] While the idea of cultists going to the site of a mass grave and causing disturbances may seem far-fetched or even irrational, it demonstrates how the events at Jonestown American society left a lasting fear of cults defined by these media sources. Without the events at Jonestown, and the subsequent reactions by themedia, there never would have been such a powerful connection between the group and the term cult, showing how the change in media coverage affected popular perceptions and usage of the word.

The evolution of cult as a result of the history and media surrounding Peoples Temple had a long termeffect on the categorization of groups as cults. Furthermore, it would go on to have an influence on culture as well as scholarly literature pertaining to religious studies.

Culturally, Peoples Temple became the blueprint for the societal understanding of what it meant to be a cult,characterized by the separation of its members from American society in Jonestown, Jim Jones’ energetic charm, andthe presence of manipulation or brainwashing first introduced to the public through news publications. Scholarly author Susannah Crockford highlights this idea in “How Do You Know When You’re in a Cult?: The Continuing Influence of Peoples Temple and Jonestown in Contemporary Minority Religions and Popular Culture,” where she writes, “Peoples Temple became the archetypal cult in popular American culture through three symbolic strands: charisma, isolation, and poison. Each of these symbols represents aspects of the history of Peoples Temple and the deaths at Jonestown on 18 November 1978.”[23] Crockford points out that the term cult and Jonestown are so inseparable because the symbols that define a cult are written in Peoples Temple history. Moreover, the three main ideas that constructed the modern cult term were commonly found in the post-White Night articles, showing how the media outlined the impending cultural shift. As cults were cemented into American cultural knowledge, it also became more associated with religious studies, which in turn affected research practices within the field. Author Phillip Deslippe details how the increased presence of cults like Peoples Temple in the religious studies field caused a shift towards understanding how these groups interact with society versus “normal” or widely accepted religions in his article “Past the Pejorative: Understanding the Word “Cult” Through Its Use in American Newspapers During the Nineties.” He states “As the study of these groups increasingly became the domain of religious studies during the 1980s and 1990s, some of the most influential approaches to the study of New Religious Movements saw the newness of these groups, or their alienation from and tension with mainstream religion and society , as their salient and defining characteristics. The academic study of New Religious Movements was also strongly influenced by its responses to major public events involving cults and the efforts of groups and individuals collectively known as the anti-cult movement.”[24] Deslippe illustrates how the cult phenomenon did not end with just Peoples Temple, and had a lasting effect on how religions and cults are placed into a societal context. His point demonstrates the scale of the effect of Jonestown’s media response and how the recent definition of cult generated by the news’ interpretation of the White Night was influential enough to cause change in studies surrounding religion and society.

Survivor accounts and how cult influenced the legacy of Peoples Temple

While it may seem evident that Peoples Temple was a cult in the neutral, traditional sense, Peoples Temple was also areligious and social movement that fought against a plethora of issues within 1950s America, such as racism, homophobia, sexism, and classism. Yet, in the present, Peoples Temple has seemingly been forgotten amongst the various civil rights or gay rights movements in dominant historiography, instead becoming synonymous with other cults like the Manson family or Heaven’s Gate. While such organizations may be argued to be cults in the traditional sense of falling outside the norm, the evolution and modern use of cult carried with it significant repercussions for the history of these groups. In 1992, psychologist Jeffrey Pfeiffer conducted a study that found “the general negative coverage of cults in the media and inundating people with the negative images from the media may result in the formation of ‘negative schemata’”, or a person’s cognitive representation that includes negativity bias.[25] Further findings show that subjects tended to rate a group in more negative terms if they are led to believe the group is a cult. These findings, in tandem with media representations and sociopolitical conditions, demonstrate that the label cult has shaped negative public perceptions of Peoples Temple and obscured its political and social activism. As a result, the group’s legacy has been overshadowed by the violent sensationalism of Jonestown, preventing a more nuanced understanding of the members’ identities, stories, and beliefs from entering dominant narratives of Peoples Temple.

The media stigmatization following the White Night not only had an effect on the legacy of Peoples Temple, but also on the surviving members who either escaped the massacre or were living in other Temple facilities. Despitesurviving, the psychological trauma they would come to experience after Jonestown was “profound and long lasting.”[26] Immediately following the massacre, around 87 survivors were interrogated and jailed in Georgetown by Guyanapolice and American media outlets.[27] For some survivors, this meant having to relive the haunting events of the White Night whilst attempting to defend their families and loved ones from condemnation.

Survivor Leslie Wagner-Wilson, who lost her husband, mother, sister, and brother, remembered that “in the beginning we were stigmatized by the media as crazy followers of Jim Jones. There was very little sympathy for us.”[28] This lack of sympathy was evident in several interviews following the White Night as well. For instance, in one 1978 interview with survivors Mike Prokes, Mike Carter, and Tim Carter, footagewould play of the casualties from the Port Kaituma airstrip shooting and of the bodies in the Jonestown pavillionwhile the interviewer prodded with questions, prompting Tim Carter to interject with “I think you should know that I lost a wife, a son, and a sister, my brother-in-law, my nephew. He [Mike Carter] lost his wife and son, and he [Prokes] lost a son.”[29] This response illustrates that the emotional turmoil that survivors like Tim were forced to endure was so distressing that Tim needed to interrupt and request to end the interview, saying shortly after, “Please, please, no more.”[30] In another interview following November 18th with Temple secretary Paula Adams and Jim Jones’ son Stephan, reporters were seen pressuring the interviewees, repeatedly asking questions despite receiving an answer:

Reporter: Is it true that the basketball team was in fact the group that was trained to be the marksmen for Peoples Temple?

Stephan: No–no. Reporter: It’s not true?Stephan: No it’s not.

Reporter: It’s not true that the basketball team practices with the thirty or forty weapons and hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition that were found?[31]

In the interview, reporters also further pushed the brainwashing narratives despite having no concrete evidence:

Reporter: I would think that keeping your child was some form of coercion. Were you aware of any other forms of coercion employed that would prevent them from leaving? Paula: I don’t–I don’t agree with the brainwashing thing because I think that still, basically people were wanted to do what they felt principallyright to do, you know. And that Jonestown was–we had several hundred children there that were—really had opportunities that they never had before…

Reporter: [Unintelligible] –After all this?[32]

These responses from survivors highlight not only the unhealed emotional trauma but also the borderline harassment from news reporters. Paula’s response, in particular, demonstrates the ability of media outlets to reframe narratives toalign with cult associations. Despite her attempts at explaining that Peoples Temple and Jonestown provided members with a safe space away from the structural inequalities in American society, the reporter expressed doubt and disbeliefin an attempt to reinforce brainwashing and cult narratives. These patterns of skepticism among reporters further illustrates the prevalence of stigma and bias due to cult associations in the public eye.

Mistreatment of the survivors and victims of Peoples Temple continued well after the weeks following the White Night. First, most survivors never received formal psychiatric treatment for their traumatic experiences, being left to struggle through and reassemble their lives on their own.[33] For instance, Michael Haag, husband of Peoples Temple survivor Patti Chastain, detailed his wife’s struggles in acquiring a job due to her association with the group. At job interviews, “prospective employers were shocked when they learned that she had been a member of Peoples Temple. And none of them had any interest in hiring her. Patti became suicidal during this time. She was forced to return to the home of her parents who took care of her,” demonstrating the prevalence of negative associations with Peoples Temple.[34]Second, media portrayals completely reshaped the way survivors reflected on the event, where survivors don’t use “media as a means of remembering, but instead depend on one another in recalling their past.”[35] This reliance on each other rather than media narratives implies a sense of mistrust with the media and frustration with how the survivors’ experiences were framed in the public eye. Many survivors have since come forth, voicing their discomfort with the pervasive cult label:

I would like for people to know that Peoples Temple was not a cult… Its a stigma, you know… as far as a cult,I hate that term, but I understand. What else are you going to call it when its something different? – Nell Smart[36]

Would the Temple be considered simply a ‘cult’ if the headlines on November 19, 1978 screamed ‘Mass Murder in Guyana!’? Would the survivors have been eviscerated and excoriated with the same contempt and disdain in the mass media? – Tim Carter[37]

These accounts illustrate the debilitating effects of stigmatization perpetuated by the media. Survivor Nell Smart’s words reveal the internal conflict that survivors felt; despite the pejorative associations with the label failing to reflect the reality of Peoples Temple’s story, the word cult had been long cemented with the image of Jonestown and the public was thus unable to see beyond that narrative. Similarly, Tim Carter’s rhetorical question serves to challenge the one-dimensional media-driven assumptions. His frustration indicates that associations with the term cult not only exacerbated public condemnation but also the emotional hardships of the survivors following the White Night event.

Ultimately, the media’s immediate use of the label cult and subsequent condemnation actively reshaped the legacy and history of Peoples Temple in public memory. Furthermore, survivor testimonies reveal that despite thetraumatic events on November 18, 1978, they were not treated as victims, rather as brainwashed cultists, reducing their agency, stories, and involvement to a one-dimensional narrative of suicide and violence.

Conclusion

Despite the growing amount of research efforts aimed at honoring the story of Peoples Temple, contemporary media outlets continue to reinforce these simplistic narratives. In a CNN article published on April 5, 2025, writer David Allan describes Peoples Temple and Jonestown as a “church (or, more fairly, cult)…lost their lives in a mass murder-suicide.”[38] This modern portrayal of Peoples Temple as a cult represents the perpetual stigmatization and condemnation that survivors are forced to still face. This continued usage of cult not only reinforces incorrect or problematic assumptions, but also weakens the movement’s political and social significance.

Furthermore, this article represents the prevalence of associations of Peoples Temple in the public imagination with the word cult, demonstrating that the word changed permanently following the events of November 18, 1978.

Ultimately, the dynamic between Peoples Temple and the label cult is not unidirectional, rather it continues toinfluence how both Peoples Temple and cult are perceived and studied. This dynamic also serves to demonstrate the power of language, and how one word can completely obscure and invalidate the hundreds of voices and efforts of Peoples Temple members. Until the stories of Peoples Temple can be removed from cult associations, the legacy of the movement will continue to remain unheard and misrepresented.

Bibliography

Notes