I have, in recent history, typically told people that I am ambivalent about the LDS church. How should I explain this position?
1) I think the local church has some really messed up people or messed up attitudes. There is another way I could say this, but people might find it offensive because of the bad language I would use.
2) I like top church leaders like the fifteen apostles. They are usually very impressive.
3) Some of the problems I've had with local leaders may actually be "gray areas" of morality. It seems wrong, but it might be right, depending on how the situation is interpreted. Very difficult to understand these situations, or at least, it was for me.
4) The church has some really really good realities to it, things that I would explain about the church as being uniquely magical, and this should not be overlooked.
5) In so many medias, it seems so apparent that there is something COMPLETELY WRONG with LDS church history.
I don't completely love the church, but I don't completely hate it. Part of the time I find myself admiring the LDS church, and part of the time I find myself despising them.
I know the church said that once you are for or against the church that there is no neutral ground - so either I AM the undiscovered neutral ground, or I keep flip-flopping back and forth about how I think about the church.
The easiest way or most accurate way that I think my ambivalence towards the church can be defined is that I think my local church is rather screwy but I love the apostles. I am a general conference mormon - the only church meetings I usually have any interest in are general conference, and CES devotionals, one of which is coming this Sunday.
And that is basically how "Letters to Whomever" ended. If you want to go on the LtW journey, there is a lot of in depth detail about why I think both sides of the fence are right.