Some responses I have to some of your responses:

1. Unless we get the plates and a new translation again from God 2 seems out of the question.

The Book of Mormon has changed a lot from the original edition, including the altering of many trinitarian statements. I don't see why racist statements could not be likewise altered.

1. I am sorry people were and are racist and that church culture and policy did and does reflect that.

Thank you for the apology. If only the church itself (i.e., the leadership) were equally capable of apologizing.

1. why?

At the very least, it makes sense for the church to warn people that even canonized scripture is not historically true--even if it may teach true principles. Too many people are under the impression that everything in the canon is true, and that can be very harmful.

1. ....not treating it as though it were literal creates its own problems...

What problems does this create?

1. That is very much overstating the case.

How so?

1. Not sure that is appropriate necessarily; or how it would help.

The church has a reputation of being led by either outright liars or at the very least by willful deceivers. Many people are led to/allowed to believe that the church has possession of these artifacts. The church should be open and honest about this either way.

1. I mean I don't see what is so great about a piece of legal paper

One thing is that it enables Mormon couples to have sex without fear of punishment, without having to wait until they are ready for the temple. Ready for marriage and ready for the temple are not necessarily the same thing.

1. This assumes that people teaching the doctrine do not themselves actually believe the doctrine to be true, which is idiotic.

You can believe something without believing that it is okay to trick your children into believing it. If it is true, then it is still better for children to come to that conclusion on their own rather than being manipulated into accepting it.

1. Leviticus and Deuteronomy being the places in scripture that actually talk about the subject should be consulted on this subject probably.

I don't think that masturbation is discussed anywhere in scripture.

1. That is up to the Apostles to figure out.
2. That is up to the members and Apostles to figure out.

I think everything suggested in this list is for the members and the leadership to figure out.

1. ....
2. ....

Are you not familiar with these organizations? It's worth a little research, I think.

1. This should be discussed openly.

What church doctrines and practices shouldn't be discussed openly?

1. Seems problematic to do so as I read things, I would be interested in hearing how that is supposed to make sense and fits with what is in scripture (I don't have high hopes for this second part).

IIRC, tithing was not always a requirement for the temple, and scripture didn't make it so. It was a change in church policy.

1. That is up to the members and Apostles to choose for themselves isn't it?

The church also has a reputation for science denial, or again for enabling members to openly deny science in favor of scriptures that are likely not literal. The leaders of the church arguably have the intellectual responsibility to help members understand truth as it comes. At some point, the level of evidence against certain traditional beliefs makes it irresponsible to continue supporting belief in them.