Last week Rick B wrote about the church not liking popular speakers because they were more charismatic than our leaders. That got me to thinking about past leaders, and how charismatic they may have been.
Most people that wrote about Joseph Smith told of him being very charismatic. The PBS website says “Joseph Smith stands as one of the most charismatic and influential religious figures in American history”. The church’s own Joseph Smith Papers project calls him a “charismatic and forceful man” The faithful answer to this is that the Lord needed this type of prophet to start and lead the church.
Next came Brigham Young. The same types of quotes can be found about him. “no less charismatic than Smith and a brilliant organizer”, “As charismatic as he was autocratic”.
There is not as much written about the personalities of later prophets. I googled the name of each prophet with the word “charismatic”. Wilford Woodruff got several hits, and Heber Grant a few. During my lifetime, the word charismatic was again used with David O McKay. It showed up with McKay over and over, but not with any of the later prophets except for a few hits with Gordon Hinckley. It also showed up a few times with Thomas Monson, but the reference was always to his “charismatic councilor Uchtdorf “!
Speaking of Uchtdorf, he is probably the most charming and charismatic of the current Q15. Is that the reason he was not re-called into the FP? I wonder what the current FP would be like if Nelson had kept Uchtdorf instead replacing him with Oaks. I don’t think Nelson would be as popular as he is, because he really shines compared to Oaks!
In my opinion, our first few prophets became such because of their charisma. With no clear succession authority, the most charismatic speaker was select as Joseph’s successor. Once succession was codified, the most senior apostle could be made prophet without any care to his personality or charisma.
So what do you think? Who are the charismatic general authorities from your youth, or currently? Paul Dunn jumps out as somebody from my youth, but that didn’t end well.
Wheat & Tares 
The most charismatic LDS speaker I ever heard was not male, so I don’t know if she qualifies according to your standards. But I still remember parts of her talk almost 50 years after ward. Cheiko Okazaki. She wasn’t even in the RS general presidency at that time, just practically nobody. But she impressed me enough to follow her for the rest of my life.
I have always loved Cheiko Okazaki too. the thing about both her and Uchtdorf is that it isn’t just how they speak, but what they speak about. Sure Uchtdorf is a wonderful speaker, but he also chooses topics that I related to (his talk on grace a few years back was deeply profound) as compared to Oaks who always makes me mad.
What I wonder is about the scriptural prophets. What part did personal charisma play in their abilities to lead? Were Peter and Paul charismatic? Moses seems not to have been, but I wonder…
Looking up the word charisma, I was surprised to learn that the spiritual aspect is a major part of its definition. I think society has strayed from that a bit toward a more general appeal of personality.
Uchtdorf definitely has some some charisma. Although before my time, I’ve enjoyed seeing occasional videos of LeGrande Richards speaking.
I think your post also raises the question of whether the Spirit can induce a certain amount of charisma or if charisma is one of the unofficial qualifying factors that helps make the leader. I suppose it could be a little of both.
I also wonder if somewhat the opposite can be true, meaning leaders have to become somewhat less charismatic or appealing, maybe even brooding, in order the convey the point the Lord wants. My grandpa went to school with BRM, and they even went on one or two double dates together. Although my grandpa moved out of state in adulthood, they remained on a first name basis. He reported that BRM was a very cheerful and humorous man, yet regularly calling people to repentence and taking hard stances have given the man a brooding or pessimistic aspect, and even a dislike among many members (I realize his actual words have done that just as much or more so). I’ve heard other reports through the grapevine over the years that he was the practical joker among the twelve, and would have loved nothing more than to allow more of that cheerfulness to spread into his conference talks, but felt he was supposed to tackle more morose subjects more often.
As a tween in the early to mid 90’s, Elder Dunn spoke to our stake as an emeritus authority. Even as a somewhat cynical and questioning tween, he struck me as a very humble man.
Uchtdorf is popular, but he is not a particularly dynamic speaker*. I don’t know if Rick B.’s comments, which were from Dr. Margaret Toscano’s interview, were more about personality or doctrine, but I felt like Uchtdorf is liked for what he has said more than how he said it.
* Please all you Uchtdorfians, don’t shoot me. This is personal opinion and many might disagree with it. We should also give the guy a break for having to speak in conference-voice, which is very limiting.
I cannot comment on charismatic leaders, as I don’t understand charisma and apparently don’t respond to reported charisma like many others. Of course, I think the uses and abuses of the word “charisma” have changed over the years from Max Weber to the present.
Rockwell’s comment shifts to “dynamic speaker”. I understand that a little better. Merriam-Webster reports on dynamic as an adjective:
“a: marked by usually continuous and productive activity or change a dynamic city
b : energetic, forceful a dynamic personality”
For me, by that first definition Uchtdorf was dynamic, though perhaps not by the second. For me Bruce R. McConkie was extraordinarily dynamic by the second, and at least equally anti-dynamic by the first, as both his manner of public speaking and what he had to say were entirely off-putting until his final general conference talk. For me Hugh B. Brown was very dynamic by that first definition and much less so by the second. Richard Poll’s retrospective on Brown considered him less “charismatic” than some other general authorities. Are we really just talking about what public speakers convey an attractive personality to what audiences?
I don’t think of Elder Uchdorf as being charismatic exactly, but his messages are always focused on the central message of the gospel. He shares the love of Christ.
The impression I got from Dr. Toscano’s interview was that she thought that leaders had an incentive to pick people below them who were less “charismatic”, mainly because it would be weird for a supposedly inspired leader to be upstaged by an underling. At that general level I think this would be in regards to speaking ability because that is the main avenue for general leaders to upstage the prophet.
At that the local level it may depend more on personality, social connections, friendliness. An elders quorum president might be reluctant to pick really popular counselors or teachers in order to maintain his authority for example. She seemed to be trying in part to explain why our meetings are all levels are so … (insert negative word here, like boring, or dumbed down).
I don’t know for sure really if this is what she was saying, though, and I can’t say I really agree with, or even understand her argument that well. But that interview is the origin of this whole conversation.
In the Uchtdorf case, I think he got the boot for doctrinal disagreement, not for charisma. Uchtdorf talked too much about grace and forgiveness, and not enough about following authority. That’s not charisma, that’s policy and doctrinal differences.
I’m not sure if calling a religious leader “charismatic” is a compliment, because it seems to me that every cult or mystical leader, from Rasputin to Charles Manson to Jim Jones to David Koresh to Warren Jeffs gets that inglorious title attached to them in their bios. Every time I watch a doc on these guys – and many more – I think to myself “Really? This is what passes for charisma?”
Uchtdorf is genuinely charismatic which is why he had the type of career that requires an attractive personality. He was able to transition from pilot to executive because of his personality. He listens with empathy, he has a steady voice, his content is wise (he uses analogies deftly, for example). He’s also attractive for his age, moreso than his cohorts, and he has an accent which makes us pay even more attention to what he says. The majority of Church leaders are not really saying anything new or different or terribly interesting, and they aren’t generally saying it in an interesting or fresh way. That’s just my opinion. It’s fairly easy to stand out in this field of leaders.
I think we choose leaders who conform to a standard – conference voice, decorum, pace, etc. David O was perhaps our last truly charismatic leader. The brethren today are corporate and executive- speaking little, but yielding an administrative command and presence. Our (let’s face it) “boring” leaders don’t have the type of charisma that bursts into a room like Gene Kelly singing “gotta dance!”. Instead, they exude a type of quiet giantIsm that bespeaks authority. Perhaps it’s the height/size (most of the Q15 is big and/or tall), or the corporate power suits, or the pedestal we put them on (we only interact with them in structured and deferential meetings), but in the rare encounters I’ve had with the leaders, they “feel” like they have the same presence- despite their different personalities.