Heh. I know you're joking (or, at least I think you are...), but I actually agree with the principle of what you're saying. If LDS scholars want their theories to be regarded as "academically serious", then they really need to assert them as such in the proper venues.
We all know the reason they don't. You have to believe FIRST, then the evidence will become clear. So if they present their mountains of evidence for, say, the historicity of the Book of Mormon, no one but people who already believe will be able to recognize it as good evidence. Everyone else will view it as wishful thinking, or possibly worse.
Believers can parse this in some way that will be less insulting to them. Perhaps the things of God are deliberately made to look like nonsense to those who are hard of heart. But the end result is the same. You have to believe FIRST in order to recognize any of this stuff as evidence.
I mean, really. Can you imagine Brant telling an audience of Mesoamerican scholars that the existence of the Jaguar sect of the Aztec military is evidence of some secret band of robbers in Mesoamerica (a.k.a. Gadianton Robbers)?? Unless his mind has changed, this is what he views as his strongest piece of evidence. I'm sure Brant knows how it would go over.
(edit on - I was serious in that, to be consistent, LDS believers must accept the validity of Joseph Smith' treasure digging with a peep stone - but of course I chose this example to demonstrate how silly the idea of them presenting these things to a nonLDS academic community is)