Mittens II

By definition, all the large world religious movements could be described as cults, whether orthodox or sectarian, even atheism could be described as the cult of empirical evidence. It's just some are more culty than others. The OED defines the word cult as follows:

cult
1 a system of religious worship directed towards a particular figure or object.
2 a small religious group regarded as strange or as imposing excessive control over members.
3 something popular or fashionable among a particular section of society.
Paraphrased from Wikipedia.

It is with the sectarian religions, like the LDS, that one finds the unhinged opposition of the christian orthodoxies at its most vehement. That Joseph Smith was a bone fide snake oil salesman and charlatan there can be no doubt, but the same could be said, at the time, of Martin Luther and subsequent heretical idealists. Just a few years after the death of Jesus, his followers were persecuted, ridiculed and 'martyred' by the orthodoxy of those times. They were, as far as everyone else was concerned, a bunch of cultist losers with a blithe, incoherent message of universal love and salvation (boy, was that ever twisted).

Unfortunately, for the early leaders of Christianity, nobody, apart from the Jews - another cult - was particularily concerned with salvation, in fact the underlying message to the pantheists seemed to be - have a diabolically good time now and have a diabolically bad time later, heaven was the exclusive domain of the gods, so don't worry, be diabolical. Of course that had to change if religious power was to be consolidated and exploited. Monotheism held out the best hope for the emperors and priests of the time so Christianity was embraced and organized for the funneling of cash from and the stabilization of the masses, in return for their hard earned cash and unquestioning devotion to church and state they would receive an afterlife.

Therefore, given its fractal, handcrafted beginnings it is not surprising that schisms appeared in the early church and throughout it's chequered past as each cult, along economic, philosophic or nationalistic lines primarily, fought for their share of the take by offering varying degrees of pleasure and pain as motivation for feilty or as a repercussion for heresy.

Under successive kings, popes and bishops informed of the ramifications of rocking the boat, the status quo remained prevelant for centuries with little in the way of major change, the protestant schisms were intellectually driven rather than based on some new heretical behavior or system of belief, the catholics were riven by long standing feuds and continental divides but practice, unto this day, almost identical rites.

So when something new comes along, it will attract the attention of not only a now skeptical public but a collusive monopoly of parties extremely hostile to change and inclusion. The LDS stands as a prime example of this argument, they will never be accepted by the established churches, even though the LDS is itself well established, because to do so would mean not only having to embrace Joseph Smith and his preposterous canon but also provide access for future mormon incursions into the diminishing pool that is the convinceable bretheren.

Mitt will have to deal with this, for him to be elected he needs the support of the christian right, because he has pretty much abandoned the center, and that would take a gigantic leap of faith, so to speak, on their behalf. It would mean accepting what for most of them is an aberration. Mitt may lead in some polls but I would like to see the demographics, I personally don't think the monolithic base has broken for anyone yet especially Mitt and they are the ones who will be struggling with this. The wingnuts may like Mitts extreme and increasingly bizare rhetoric right now but they would be much more comfortable with a Fred Thompson or a Rudy rather than having to even think about religion come election day, for them, much like in early christendom it is a tool, a means to an end - exclusive power - not a way of life.