FF:"It is nearly impossible for a person in a western society not to be continually bombarded with religious influences. Relatively few people are raised as actual atheists - and many of them may actually understand the philosophy behind the opinion. This can make even skeptical people susceptible to religious indoctrination."
I agree that even skeptical people may be susceptible to religious indoctrination. What puzzles me is not the general statistical case, but the extreme case. People switching from hard skeptics to fervent believers. And while this can be seen as the "tail of the distribution" from the statistical viewpoint, the issue is why is religion the preferred choice of this antipodal change? I am aware that this may be better approached from the psychological viewpoint, but to me it is a puzzling fact.
FF:"Some people like being told what to do and how to think. They want a guru. It's not enough to figure out, they want someone else to tell them the right way to think - perhaps they are trying to avoid taking responsibility for their decision."
I am aware of this issue. Your argument would explain why they followed the "leader of the pack". But think about mormonism. Almost all who followed Joseph Smith had previously belonged to other well established religious denominations. What is strange is that they accepted a new doctrine in an epoch when appartenance to a denomination/church was almost sacrosanct, and openmindedness towards other churches was almost inexistent.
FF:"A common xian belief is that the consequences of coming to the wrong conclusion are dire."
Gee, you mean someone should be responsible for their actions? Perish the thought in the western society. There is common sense and then there is the letter of the law, which often enough may be disjoint concepts
FF:"Much better to let someone else take credit (or blame) for leading one about by the nose."
Hmm, this seems like an argument made in hindsight. I don't agree with it because it would make the flock smarter that its leader, and also capable of planning in advance. And I don't find evidence for such arguments for neither mormonism, nor scientology, as far as their beginning is concerned. As far as I am aware, it has been rather the other way around, the flock has been ruled by a (smarter/more cunning) leader.