...if Ray can be a Bishop, Ray who admits to using prostitutes, who admits to drinking beer while he posts on the Net for his main entertainment in life, the same Ray who isn't the sharpest tool in the shed then it is apparent that anyone , strike that, any man with questionable morals and mental reasoning ability can be a Bishop. And women in the church look up to these guys?
Whoa. I think there is a very high likelihood that any activities such as you describe were done after Ray left the Mormon Church or at least after he was no longer an LDS bishop. I also think that it is not SOP for "any man with questionable morals" to be selected to act as a Mormon bishop. It should go without saying that "women in the church" would not en masse "look up to" men with questionable morals, whatever one determines that to be.
...although you complain you still buy into it and accept the rules and culture you complain about.
Just to give some perspective on this, most humans likely buy into and accept the culture into which they are born and will even complain about things within it. My heritage lies in a country with a long history of harsh imperialism. While I don't appreciate that history I don't renounce the culture of my birth. While I do think that origins are important, especially of organizations, to me it's more important to assess the current situation and the planned future direction, in most instances.
The nevermos in the crowd often stand out as they're the ones who casually toss off the notion that Mormons should "just leave" their heritage and culture. If one turns that around and applies it to their own environment, heritage, culture, it is easily seen to not be the first impulse most people have. Would you renounce your US citizenship if you didn't like the current president? Would you leave your country if you didn't agree with its foreign policy? Leaving a faith that is also a heritage/culture is no small feat, especially when there are negative family ramifications on top of all the other losses. While it wasn't right for me, who wasn't Mormon by birth, to stay in Mormonism once I had no belief or hope left within it, I can't expect all people born into it to leave it altogether when they have questions or portions of it with which they may disagree or just not like too much.
It boils down to you being stuck in a culture you don't like, complaining ..yet all the while no one is forcing you to stay or accept any of it.
Same comments as above really, in that just by accident of birth it is highly likely that one will continue to embrace the culture into which they are born and raised. Not all members, even those with doubts or questions or disagreements, see things the way other members do, or ex-members or never-members. Our reality is not their reality. While it seems to make sense to outsiders to "just leave" that misses the point of a faith and a culture being intertwined. Also, there is the point that people born-in view things differently than do converts (who tend to focus on doctrine perhaps much more than BICs do). Thus, what may really bother a convert or a nevermo may not even blip on the radar screen of the BIC. It's just the way it works. To say that I don't like this and that and therefore all members know those issues and should feel the same and react as I do about them is quite a one-dimensional view.
IMO anyone with high integrity once they know the history of the church, once they appreciate it was man created and fraudulent with tales of angels no one has observed except by con artists, golden plates no one observed except by con artists, reformed egyptian which never existed, history which is a complete lie, a strong liklihood that a dead man's manuscript was the key catalyst to the man written Book of Mormon pawned off as scripture... should do something about it by not subjecting themselves to or being supportive. But then again you may not be able to see your way out, or you may not have the high personal integrity it would take to walk away.
I'm not sure I've seen harmony make any or all of these statements, if that is what your point is here. (Once again my disclaimer is that I don't read every single post here so I could be wrong about some of my conclusions based on that). Even so, again with the nevermo take on it (which is understandable but not definitive). It's not really up to non-members to say what members "should" do (as in leave because of doctrinal issues with which we or even the member may disagree).
Regarding "personal integrity", again, is it our call to state categorically what that is for every church member? In theory, I would hope that people would live what they believe. As far as personal integrity goes, I generally focus on what that looks like for me. I think we can certainly opine about integrity in general and what that looks like to us but criticizing another person's level of integrity, especially when we don't know them personally, seems a bit presumptuous to me.
I think there is a lot that never-members of various faiths do not and will never understand and that should go some way towards restraining our expectations of what other people should or should not do. (Exceptions are cases of egregious breaches of basic human values, etc, in my view).