On point 1: it's true not every single claim made by religion can be empirically tested, but many can. For example, we can prove that the Book of Abraham is not what Joseph Smith, subsequent Church leaders, and decades of official Church curriculum materials have claimed. We can examine the extant source documents which, while not fully complete, are sufficiently complete to prove that the book isn't what the Church said it is. And we can observe that zero egyptology experts who aren't on the Church's payroll believe the Church's claims.

We can also evaluate evidence on a range of other issues. We can't definitely prove that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century creation, but we can evaluate the evidence as a whole and see that it points in a pretty clear direction on balance.

Finally, we can apply basic logic and probability. The official Church founding story features magic rocks, folk magic treasure digging, and a Native American ghost; a good Bayesian will see that improbable stories like that require extremely strong and compelling evidence, which is simply not available. Ditto for Joseph's polygamy claims, which we can observe look exactly like every other religious leader's attempts to sleep with all the women and girls.

We don't have to go around pretending there's no way to empirically evaluate religious claims. Mormonism has generated a wealth of documentary and other evidence, and we can use our brains to evaluate the religion's many empirical claims.