On the question of relative weirdness of doctrines… Daniel C Dennett, in his much-quoted “playing tennis with the net down” argument, claims that all appeals to the supernatural are equally out of court (in both senses); that once you accept that any metaphysical forces at all (God, gods, karma) exist, all statements about them are equally implausible.

I don’t accept this. For example, while I’m not Catholic or Pentecostal, I believe that claims about healings at Lourdes or your local megachurch deserve more respect from rationalists and skeptics, even from outright atheists - being harder to debunk - than, eg, the claims to godhood of ancient emperors. I’m not an Egyptian polytheist or a Mormon, but a doctrine that the gods helped build the pyramids is more difficult to refute than a claim that American Indians are descended from ancient Israelites. Hal Lindsay and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who predicted the End of the World on dates that have already passed, are (even) easier to refute than someone who claims that it won’t happen until we all get microchipped in the hand or forehead. A claim that there’s a sea monster in Loch Ness is harder to laugh off than a claim that there’s a sea monster in your washbasin. And so forth.

Even rationalists themselves concede that not all religions are equally implausible. Quite often one reads skeptics (eg, Gibbon) writing something on Islam that boils down to “Well, sure, it is tosh, but at least it’s minimalist tosh - at least the Muslims don’t ask you to swallow such bizarre doctrines as transubstantiation, the Trinity, magical priestly powers, etc.” Similarly, Voltaire thought thatthe Reformation’s getting rid of superstitious Catholic dogmas was a good first step, he thought, but the Protestants would do even better if they went further still, stripped away the superstitious Biblical mumbo-jumbo too, and got back to simple, naturally-reasoned Deism. I even doubt that Dennett himself would consider Bishop Spong’s or the Unitarian Universalists’ belief in some form of [d]eity to be as obviously laughable - to them - as the elderly Italian lady with her scapular and Sacred Heart icons.

You wrote: “…Feldman might have a point, except that the claim of new revelation is actually the least ‘ridiculous’ part of the story. It is, and always has been, the content of that revelation that has drawn the most criticism, and so for the most part the majority dutifully ignores or downplays how the content of this or that religion is theologically untenable.”

By what criteria should we argue that “this or that religion” is theologically untenable? Because as an empirical matter Mormon theology has proven to be spectacularly tenable: ever increasing millions of educated, non-coerced people live their lives happily believing and defending it. If on the other hand you mean only that it is untenable because you personally do not find it logical/consistent/plausible or whatever, what special authority do you (or any other individual citizens) have? Example: I was raised in an evangelical Christian household, and while I personally find Christian theology untenable (preposterous, actually), I think it would be rather arrogant of me to declare it untenable in general.

Incidentally, even though that YouTube debate question was a Democratic plant the question about the Bible was interesting. Based on what Romney said in his speech, this was a question about church teaching and doctrine that he believes is inappropriate, but he answered the question anyway. The authority of Scripture is absolutely a purely theological and ecclesiological matter, but he accepted that it was appropriate to talk about that, but not about the rather more controversial bits.

I say that it’s a tricky question, because both Mormons and Christians, if they’re to be credible, have to view parts of their holy book as parables, allegories, or just a story.

First, the Mormon belief in the Total Apostasy. There is no evidence for this coutnerfactual alleged history, unless one believes the Arians were right, which may actually be plausible int he case of Mormons.

Two, the general Protestant view that somehow Christianity had been getting it wrong for 1,500 years until they showed up to promote a totally alien, unhierarchical, and au courant Christianity that rejected centuries-old views going back to the Gospels on Transubstantiation, Marian virginity, Marian veneration, grace and free will, sacramental theology, etc.

I do think a thread uniting much “rationalist” skepticism is a kind of Manichean and non-rational separation of matters material and matters spiritual. Anything in this world has not spiritual essence in this view. This of course is a logical outgrowth of the rejection of sacraments, where we have visible and tangible signs of invisible grace, much like the blind man woman who touched Jesus cloak and was instantly healed (among many such matter-spiritual episodes in the Gospels).

All I can do is sigh and direct them to, among other thing, the Pope’s address at Regensburg and Fides et Ratio. Not that it makes any difference.