People like to talk about putting things that bother them about the church on a shelf.  Of course, the problem is that for some, the shelf gets pretty full and comes crashing down like Fibber McGee’s closet.  So what’s on your shelf, and is there a better model for dealing with problematic church doctrines?
The shelf analogy was actually used by Camilla Kimball:
Because of her family’s hospitality toward searching and studying, Sister Kimball says, “I’ve always had an inquiring mind. I’m not satisfied just to accept things. I like to follow through and study things out. I learned early to put aside those gospel questions that I couldn’t answer. I had a shelf of things I didn’t understand, but as I’ve grown older and studied and prayed and thought about each problem, one by one I’ve been able to better understand them.”
Things people talk about putting on a shelf include:
  • polygamy
  • priesthood ban
  • historical issues / MMM / Joseph Smith / BOM historicity / BOA / restoration detail discrepancies
Does the shelf analogy work or is there another way to look at this?
 
What about “cold cases”?  Detectives who investigate crimes sometimes talk about a “cold case,” a case that is unsolved and eventually abandoned as the leads go “cold.”  I think this analogy works even better (and doesn’t really contradict the shelf analogy).  Often a detective (on TV anyway) will periodically pull out a “cold case” and try one more time to solve it.  Sometimes, this works because:
  • experiences they’ve had as a detective since that case have given them new perspective
  • new evidence has emerged.  For example, DNA evidence and fingerprint evidence (and other forensic sciences) have changed substantially over the last decade, casting new light on old crimes.
  • similarities to subsequent crimes can change the overall understanding of the case
  • evidence relating to witnesses or suspects or even victims can emerge or change over time

So, this analogy works better for me, but also puts these issues in the realm of “hobby” in my mind.  These are issues that are a curiosity, something fun to explore, and while they are personally important to the individual, they may or may not be “solvable” or “conclusive” cases.  We just have to make a decision based on the evidence we have, or move on and revisit them later.  Once you’ve made a decision on a case, right or wrong, you tend to move on past it and work on another issue.

Does the “cold case” analogy work for you?  What are your cold cases?  Are there cold cases you’ve ultimately solved to your satisfaction or do you hang onto them and mull them over again every so often?  Discuss.