Most of today's closet LDS intellectuals have something in common with the ancient Gnostics. No, they don't generally share a dizzyingly complex cosmogony, write their own scriptures, or think of the OT God as an inferior being. Like the ancient Gnostics they exist within the LDS Church and find themselves at odds with it.
The ancient Gnostics were kind of arrogant about their self-perceived superiority. Or, at least, this is how the Church Fathers like to portray them. From a patristic perspective, these folks were looking down their noses at the average member of the Church, because these average types didn't possess the secret doctrines and interpretations of scripture that marked out the enlightened Gnostic.
Indeed, the some Gnostics (it can be dangerous to generalize too much) thought that they alone had the divine spark that marked them out as worthy of salvation. Most everyone else was simply not quite so bright. Now, I do think that the Signaturi (the Mormon intellectuals) of today can be arrogant. My modest knowledge of Church history and World history sometimes has me metaphorically clucking my tongue at some of the ignorance I encounter in Church.
If anything, however, modern Mormon intellectuals are haunted by that sinking feeling that they are out of step. After all, the leadership of the Church likes to make people who see things a little differently feel that way. The very act of picking up an unofficial Mormon magazine has been stigmatized over the pulpit by an apostle of the Church. Then one sees scholars being excommunicated or disfellowshiped because of their research. Someone like Michael Quinn, a historian who had a strong testimony and whose work explicitly avowed allegiance to the leaders of the Church, gets excommunicated as part of a small purge of Mormon scholars and intellectuals. Another apostle identifies intellectuals as one of the three great threats to the Church.
Since it is apparent that freedom of speech has little place in modern LDS Mormonism, I think it is necessary to do what many ancient Gnostics did in order to survive--go underground. What does this mean? It means that you essentially have to keep your mouth shut about your real thoughts to your fellow members and local leaders.
The early Church Fathers who wrote against the Gnostics were frustrated because they 'masqueraded' as regular Church members. Given the efforts of these Fathers to root out Gnostics and Gnostic teachings from the Church, one can understand why they needed the disguise. The situation for them was something like this. Others were defining with greater strictness what it Christianity should mean for everyone. These others were not the approved Church leaders in the LDS sense. They were self-appointed rhetorical bullies.
Unfortunately, such bullies exist in the LDS Church today, and a few of them were and are numbered among the Lord's servants. Here are some names: Elder Bruce R. McConkie, Elder Mark E. Peterson, Elder Boyd K. Packer, and, sadly, Elder Dallin H. Oaks. I say sadly on the last one because I generally really like Elder Oaks, but his positions on unofficial LDS publications and the historicity of the Book of Mormon are narrow and unforgiving. Still, I am not aware that he has personally initiated any disciplinary action against scholars like Elder Packer has.
With the power of the LDS Church arrayed against intellectuals (i.e. Signaturi), one can either get out or go 'Gnostic' (and I think of this in terms of being underground and in a sense adversarial). Now, the leaders of the Church paint those who differ in opinion with them as apostates, since they take 'authority' as the center of their Gospel creed. The important thing, in their minds, is not so much the independent truth value of an idea as its origin and function. If a truth does not 1) serve the purposes of the LDS Church as the leadership define it, 2) originate from them or one of their various organs, 3) serve to paint the Church and its claims in unmitigatedly rosy fashion, then it is not 'truth' by their definition.
Scholars who discover truths that are not convenient to the Church quickly learn that these truths are not very valuable in the minds of those who run it. The fact that Joseph Smith received the Mechezidek priesthood authority from God's voice and not at the hands of Peter, James, and John is one such inconvenient truth. After all, the idea of resurrected beings laying their physical hands on Joseph Smith's head to give him these keys and authority works well when the 'hands-on' method is the one employed today. Problem is, there is no real good evidence for the claim that hands were used until years after the events transpired.
Publishing or delivering a paper that delves into the actual historical development of priesthood authority and claims is the kind of thing that lands one in a disciplinary council very quickly. Grant Palmer was disfellowshiped for his book which contains a chapter on the subject.
So what is one to do? Publish and perish (in LDS terms) or be silent and perish (in psychological terms). Not the best options. But what are you going to do?
