An observation or two about change and repentance are in order. I say this in light of the unethical exploitation by Democrats, liberals, and their allied media voices, of the sorrows of a teenage girl who happens to be the daughter of a candidate for vice president. The young girl—who is not a candidate for any political office—deserves nothing but concern, support, and an encouraging hand, which are best provided by her family and those close to her. That is where the matter should be left, and the rest of the world should bow out.
Similar situations are faced by many families today (without the political exploitation), so in that general context I offer a thought about our attitude toward those who have confronted and overcome life’s sorrowful missteps. One of the greatest gifts that God has provided to His children is the opportunity to change. Change for the better is called repentance. It is made possible by the atonement of Jesus Christ.
A few years ago I penned a brief allegory that goes something like this.
A runner once broke his leg, which was broken through a careless act of his own. Understandably, it greatly pained him. He was also deeply disappointed. He went to a doctor to have it treated. The doctor set the bones and put the leg in a cast.
Of course, everyone knew he had a broken leg, because they could see the cast. There was some embarrassing chatter about how the leg was broken.
After some time the bones healed. The doctor removed the cast.
Is it not right for the man to run and jump and walk upright? Or should he continue to hobble as if his leg had never been mended? Shall he not once again enter the race, and if he wins should he be denied the prize?
Putting behind us the memories and reminders of overcome errors is an essential part of repentance, a part that allows us not only to change but to go forward fully healed. As Jesus Christ has said in modern days, “Behold, he who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more.” (Doctrine and Covenants 58:42)
What the Lord has forgotten, does man have any business remembering?
2 comments:
I agree that the daughter should be left alone. She doesn't deserve the public criticism or spotlight. However I blame that on her mother, not on the democrat party. This poor girl not only deserves forgiveness, but also deserves a mother who is more interested in her and her siblings than her political career. I think it's unlikely she wasn't aware of her daughter's situation before she accepted the nomination. What did she think was going to happen, or did she even care? It's unrealistic to expect the public to be kind and forgiving to the daughter. It is not too much to ask that the mother put her family first, look at what this would have done to her daughter, and respectfully turn down the position. Even better, decide to stay home with all her children, including her new Down syndrome baby. While the daughter doesn't deserve the public judgment from this unfortunate event, her mother does. We have to look at our political candidates critically, and I think that includes observing how they treat their families. In this case to me it's obvious where Governor Palin's priorities lie. Can Governor Palin change? Of course. But when it comes to this presidential election, I'm staying clear of the candidates promoting "change".
I cannot and do not accept the idea that politics gives anyone license to exploit the faults and foibles of a candidate’s family members. I think that it is particularly reprehensible when the target is a minor child of the candidate.
If a family member, such as the spouse of the candidate, hits the campaign trail, making public speeches, propounding his or her own views and criticizing other candidates, that is another thing. He or she has stepped into the arena. That is quite different from dragging a child of a candidate into the spotlight to make sport of her. That attention is in no way appropriate, excusable, or legitimate. Character assassination of children is completely blameworthy.
I also have trouble understanding the view that abusing the family members of the candidate is somehow the candidate’s fault. That seems to me something like thinking that a victim is to blame for being a victim. Should good people refrain from seeking public office because of the threat that opponents may seek to harm their children? With that idea, the bad guys win. Added to that, I do not see how the threatened are to be called to account for the threats. That just gives more power to the intimidators. With that doctrine, how would we ever overcome organized crime? Fortunately, throughout history enough good people have braved on and come forward despite such risks. I am very grateful for such leaders and the families who support them.
It is easy to come up with a list of reasons why good candidates who would make good leaders should stay home. Each reason has more or less merit to it. But such reasons must also be weighed against the great need we have today for good political leadership. I have had a career for over twenty years working with political leadership at the federal level. I can say that during that time we have never had as great a need for good leaders as we have today. The class of good leaders has gotten smaller, not larger.
The real issue for us is, would Sarah Palin make a good leader? What she sacrifices—and how others help her cope with the sacrifices—to step into public service is her business. Our job is to consider what she would do with the responsibilities of public office, what policies would she advocate, what decisions would she make, how would she conduct herself, in short, whether she would provide the kind of public leadership that this nation needs. If the answer is yes, then it is our job to support her and others like her. I believe that the answer is, yes.
Post a Comment