Are we as ex-Mormons being unreasonable with our criticism of not seeing progressive changes in the church?

Not sure if this has been talked about before. This was just an observation that came to mind after making a comment regarding how women are underrepresented in church leadership and I just wanted to bring it up for what it's worth.

It seems to me that, if the church doesn't make progressive changes, people will use that stagnation as a reason to say that the church isn't much of a force for good in the world or that it isn't a good organization to be a part of.

But if progressive changes are made, then those changes will be used as evidence to show how the church "changes with the times" and isn't really being led from "on high", but is just a man-made church.

So it's like they're damned if they do change, damned if they don't. And I suppose the dilemma really just stems from their own insistence on maintaining doctrinal consistence (as they would see it) and not appearing to go apostate in the eyes of the members.

IDK. It's hard to say if we're the ones being unreasonable, or if our reasons for criticism are justified because of their own doctrinal/theological hangups. I just don't want to appear like I'm giving them a hard time without good justification.

Personally, I feel that the church hasn't been the greatest force for good in my life, and I do believe that it is a man-made organization. So I guess I'd prefer to see changes for the better made in the organization despite it being used as evidence against the church's claims of divine guidance. I suppose that's really for the members to sort through in their own minds.