I would argue that, while the LDS Church originated principally through the actions of one person, Joseph Smith, from the beginning of its formal organization in April, 1830, he endeavored to share authority with others. Initially Oliver Cowdery had the same authority as Smith, having been, according to Smith and Cowdery, ordained with Smith by John the Baptist and then by Peter James and John as resurrected persons. In 1831 as more people joined the Church in Kirtland, Ohio, Smith appointed Edward Partridge as the first Bishop of the Church, having authority over financial and material matters. As the membership expanded, more positions of authority were created by Smith, the most significant being the ordination of the twelve apostles in 1835. After Smith and other leaders were arrested during the Missouri militia’s campaign to “exterminate” Mormons, and while he was held in jail over the winter of 1838-39, it was Brigham Young and other apostles who managed the evacuation of Missouri and the gathering of the refugees to Quincy, Illinois. By 1844, before Smith’s death, the largest body of converts to Mormonism were immigrants from Britain, who had been taught and led by various apostles like Young and Heber C. Kimball and Franklin Richards, and had not had any contact with Smith until actually arriving in the city of Nauvoo.

Besides devolving and delegating authority, Smith also lived as a very common member of the community, working at manual labor and engaged in common recreations. He did not own a home of his own until the very last years of his life, in Nauvoo. He did not aggrandize himself with material wealth, indeed far less so than many popular preachers in the more conventional denominations of his day. He did not meet the expectations of many in his day concerning what a prophet should look or act like. He made a point of deflating people’s expectations, insisting that, other than the specific revelatory experiences he had, he was otherwise an ordinary man. He did not dress distinctively, did not have a formal retinue or special vehicle, and lived most of his time in Nauvoo in a log cabin. While he did eventually accept commission as a general for the Nauvoo militia (formally organizaed under state charter), and wore a uniform at drills, he was not the only officer. Smith was accused of “mass hypnotism,” but since almost no one joined the Church in the earliest days who had seen Smith before joiining, it does not serve as an explanation for why people joined the small, unusual church.

Finally, when Smith was murdered by a mob of Illinois militia while peacefully awaiting a bail hearing, the Church continued on under the leadership of Young and the apostles, pretty much as before. Young’s leadership was focused on the practical issue of getting Mormon converts to Utah territory as a place of refuge from the kinds of persecution they had experienced in Missouri and Illinois at the hands of their “Christian” neighbors.

One of the most important ways that Smith took actions that led away from a “cult of personality” was embodying his revelations into printed volumes. This may seem paradoxical, but when a religious leader offers a text that is authoritative, it invites comparison of new revelations to the old, and creates a burden of consistency. Smith began his church having already produced a 500 page text, which had its own charisma independent of Smith, indeed, his own leadership authority was very dependent on what people thought of the text and its invitation to all readers to engage in their own direct revelatory experience, asking God to verify or disconfirm the truth of the book. A few years later, the Church voted to publish Smith’s compiled, dictated revelations as The Doctrine & Covenants, containing most of Smith’s innovative teachings. The elements of the Pearl of Great Price were only published in a limited way in the Nauvoo nespaper prior to Smith’s death at age 38.

Smith also taught the principle that any member of his Church could receive revelation from God, applicable to himself and his own family or his responsibilities in the Church. They were specifically not dependent on Smith as the sole source of guidance, but were specifically enjoined to use their best judgment, informed by scripture.

Within the Book of Mormon, the importance of independent and free choice, as part of God’s grace to mankind, is one of the greatest emphases. Smith, in his sermons and revelations, was explicit that governance in the Church only worked
“through gentleness and meakness and by love unfeigned,” and that coercion within the Church by definition lacked authority from God.

Smith did not claim to be the Messiah in any way, shape or form (and thus was distinct from Mother Ann Lee, founder of the Shakers). He shared authority from the beginning of the Church organization, in more elaborate ways as the membership expanded. Most Mormon converts had never seen Smith before joining. It was not personal charisma but acceptance of a body of written doctrine (including the Book of Mormon) that brought people into the LDS Church and provided an objective standard for belief. He affirmed the freedom of people to disagree with him, and denounced coercion within the Church.

So the proposition that Smith’s original Mormons met even the common, pejorative definition of a “cult” is not at all clear. In many ways, Smith’s leadership was far less a “cult of personality” than the organizations founded and led by various modern televangelists.

Turning to Mike Huckabee: Is he engendering a “cult of personality”? This is a phenomenon that occurred with men like Hitler, Stalin and Mao Tse Tung. President Chavez of Venezuela is definitely in that group, as is Fidel Castro. My observation is that Huckabee seems explicitly to rely on “miracles” and other divine intervention to take him to victory, rather than conventional methods like advertising and explaining his views. The internet comments by Huckabee supporters also seem to be predominantly “faith-based”, seeing Huckabee as a divinely-ordained candidate who will “take back America for Jesus” and assert anew God’s dominion over the US Constitution.

This kind of language was nowhere to be seen in Romney’s statements, nor in those of his supporters. He made arguments on his principals and policies and talents, but did not suggest that God wanted him to win. The confidence of Romney supporters was in his resume and accomplishments, not in a belief in divine intervention or that he had a special charisma from God.

Frankly, the Barack Obama candidacy seems to me to be very much the same kind of exercise, where it is his personality rather than any evidence of good judgment or special knowledge or skills that makes him attractive to voters. HIs foreign policy suggestions have bordered on the ludicrous. He has almost no experience in national government. The fact that he exceeded real experienced Senators like Biden and Dodd says a lot about how personality counts more than experience and accomplishments in the Democratic Partry nominating process.

For that matter, the same could be said of Hillary Clinton, who has not demonstrated outstanding characteristics of leadership in her limited period of Senate service, and who is largely running as a celebrity with residual charisma from her husband’s white house term.

Indeed, there were frequent comments about Romney lacking an attractive persona, with the quirkiness that makes one a celebrity, which by and of itself can be a way of earning a living. Romney was the anti-charisma candidate.