Kids these days, rowdy like it's 19... um, 399 AD
Note: This blog post is from 2008. Some content may be outdated--though not necessarily. Same with links and subsequent comments from myself or others. Corrections are welcome, in the comments. And I may revise the content as necessary.A teacher relates how he moved to a new city because he heard the students there were much less rowdy than in his former school, where they would just bust in and be disruptive. Of course, we take it as a given that this could happen in many places today, but what's interesting is this isn't an account from today, or yesteryear. Not 100 years ago, nor even 1,000 years ago, but the late 4th century AD!
Here's what he had to say (and how we can relate):
I was persuaded to go to Rome and teach there [because]... I had been informed that the students there studied more quietly and were better kept under the control of stern discipline, so that they did not capriciously and impudently rush into the classroom of a teacher not their own--indeed, they were not admitted at all without the permission of the teacher. At Carthage, on the contrary, there was a shameful and intemperate license among the students. They burst in rudely and, with furious gestures, would disrupt the discipline which the teacher had established for the good of his pupils.
This is from Augustine's Confessions, an autobiographical work (more than that, really) regarded as one of the earliest in western civilization. Of course it's an English translation of the original Latin, but boy, it sure sounds like things haven't changed.
So next time you want to lament "kids these days", just know that it's not really all that much worse than in times past. Sure, there have been periods where calm and discipline may have reigned, but sadly it's human nature to degrade to chaos. The gist of the work is about the guiding hand that causes this pendulum to swing to and fro.
Even if you don't agree with his premise, it's still an often fascinating glimpse into redemption from a debaucherous life 1600 years ago, from Augustine's pulling pranks as a child to gain acceptance, to falling in with the wrong crowd as a teen and stealing things just for the thrill, to dropping out of school, later shacking up with a girlfriend unmarried for 11 years, and so on. He turns out well in the end, to the extreme, so there's hope. Having done one of those things myself, I can surely relate!
But my main point is that we tend to look on the past with rose-colored glasses, as if they were always simpler, more innocent times (SO unlike ours), and that TODAY is a time of unprecedented declining moral values. "Sure", we figure, "those were tough times, with wars, pestilence, and disease back then", but we've moved so far beyond those times with our modern culture, intelligence, reason, etc.
I just think it's pretty eye-opening to get a chance to peer into a time capsule like this from so long ago, to see a day in the life as it were, partying like it was 19..., um, 399 AD.
PS For folks interested in the book but who prefer to listen to it, there are many recordings, including from Librivox.
For more content like this from Charlie Arehart:Need more help with problems?
- Signup to get his blog posts by email:
- Follow his blog RSS feed
- View the rest of his blog posts
- View his blog posts on the Adobe CF portal
- If you may prefer direct help, rather than digging around here/elsewhere or via comments, he can help via his online consulting services
- See that page for more on how he can help a) over the web, safely and securely, b) usually very quickly, c) teaching you along the way, and d) with satisfaction guaranteed
When I am thinking about the wickedness of today's world compared to the past, I always remind myself of Sodom and Gomorrah. I know you are religious, Charlie, so I hope you don't mind if I refer to the bible on your blog, and wax a little religious for a moment. Anyway, I don't think our world today is as bad as Sodom and Gomorrah was, at least not in the US and most Western countries (I make this qualification only because I am not familiar with all cultures in the World, but mainly with Western cultures; it's not to say that I know of other cultures that are worse than ours as far as wickedness, just that I can't rule out the possiblity). But if you study Sodom and Gomorrah, and how openly wicked they were...I don't think we are anywhere near that bad today. We do have a lot of similar "sins" in our culture today, but it is generally kept hidden, and when they are exposed there is often punishment. But Sodom and Gomorrah had become so generally wicked that people weren't afraid to parade their sins out in the open, and to try to drag everybody else into their sinful behaviors. And the large majority of their population had become wicked. In our culture today, we do have a lot of wickedness, but I like to believe that the majority is still trying to "be good", however each person defines that for themselves. :)
To answer your first question, there were certainly similarities between Jerusalem and Carthage in Augustine's time, as both had been part of the Roman Empire for hundreds of years by that point (much longer than the USA has been a country ...). Of course, there were distinct cultural differences -- Jewish vs Punic -- but Augustine was a Roman, and that would have defined his life as very similar whether in Rome, in Carthage, or in Jerusalem at the time. While in Carthage, Augustine recounts (in the Confessions) a life of high debauchery ... think the college years at a known Party School in the US. Hookers and booze and the whole nine.
So, his comments about going to Rome to find kids who would sit and listen is also to be taken in the context: this was a man who knew the "street" and knew full well the challenges and discouragement of trying to teach in a highly disruptive classroom. What I find fascinating is that Rome in this period would have been considered more disciplined, despite the Empire's rapid decline throughout the century.
BTW, I noticed I slipped in referring to 399 as 3rd century within my entry above. Doh!. I've corrected that.
As for your picture of debauchery at a party school, yep, that's what I was trying to communicate. Yours is a still better picture. :-)
Interesting thought about how Rome could have been regarded to have been more disciplined in light of the concurrent decline and subsequent fall less than 20 years after Augustine's arrival in 383.
In fact, as Paul Harvey might say, there's a "rest of the story".
Augustine goes on to relate that things only SEEMED better in Rome. (the grass was just as likely to be "greener on the other side of the fence" then as now. :-]) It didn't take long for him to realize that the Roman students played their own games and would conspire to transfer out as a group from one class to another, to avoid paying their teacher. Yet again, it sounds like something contemporary students might think so clever.
But more important, as Augustine relates, he ultimately came to realize that it was all really just providential, that he was "persuaded to do this...[by]....the profoundest workings" of God's wisdom and mercy. God's providence is the very "guiding hand" I was alluding to in the entry above, and again it's at the crux of Augustine's message.
But as for me being "religious", I realize you're saying that charitably, but I'll take the chance to correct that and say instead that I'm a Christian. It also leads to a discussion of some other points you made, and tying it back to Augustine. More on that in a moment.
But as for the distinction I just drew, it may seem a mere technicality to some, but it's really not. I found a good quote someone posted:
"There is a big difference in being religious and being a Christian. Being religious is following a system of Do's and Don'ts. The Do's- go to church, read the bible, help others, pray. The Don'ts- don't drink, don't smoke, don't kill people. The trouble with religion is that it traps people into a false sense of security that if they follow the rules, then they will somehow be acceptable to God. Christians believe that no matter what you do or how perfect you are- you still aren't good enough to be accepted by God. With other religions you have to achieve some level of perfection within yourself by adhering to their guidelines. With Christianity it's all about Grace. It's not about what you can do- it's about what Jesus did. Being a Christian is not a boring set of rules or following a fun killing religion. Being a Christian is an exciting daily walk doing our best to follow what we see our God doing." (quoted from "Circle of Seven", by Clay Jacobsen)
I'd change his words only to say our walk should be "doing our best to do what God commands" rather than only what we see him doing, since his ways are not our ways, and we can't always really tell what he's doing. But even then it's important to note that it's only by God's grace that we can even do what he commands. It's a conundrum and may even seem illogical to some, but that's in fact what the Bible teaches, and it's the real gist of Augustine's heritage, capturing and communicating the significance of this Grace.
Indeed, though it's said that this was the work of the Reformation, really they were just recapturing what Augustine is known most well for having communicated (see http://www.leaderu.c...).
(Some will note I'm careful not to say "what he/they taught". It's easy to hear that and assert that any human teaching runs the risk of being mere opinion. Rather, these guys were merely capturing the truth expressed in the Bible. In those early days [3rd-15th century] it was written in languages not generally known commonly across multiple nationalities--originally Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, then Latin dominated through the Middle ages--so theologians did unpack and communicate the Bible to the people, many staying true to the text and the truth revealed in its entirety.)
As for the discussion of Sodom and Gomorrah, and its relevance for today, that's certainly a topic even many Christians could debate. As for your hope in people generally "trying to be good", that's really another deep topic.
Suffice it to say, the Wikipedia entry on Augustine clarifies what he'd assert: "human beings...lack the freedom to do good" without that same grace. It, too, may seem a conundrum. He's merely clarifying what the bible teaches, in its entirety. Whether from reading that in whole, or works from people like Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and many more, these concepts can become more clear. (I'm not saying this to either of you necessarily, but to any who might read this and wonder what the heck I'm talking about.)
I just don't think this blog entry is the place to delve too deeply into what is a weighty and substantive topic. When I write blog entries or answer mailing list questions on technical topics, I often point to the docs for folks to learn more. I'm just doing the same here. :-)
And I like your distinction between just following do's and don'ts and truly taking advantage Grace. Anyway, you may not want to discuss all this stuff under your blog entry, so feel free to reply to me directly instead of here, if you'd prefer (and you want to continue this discussion).
Luckily, it seems to me that more and more Christians today are rediscovering that the key is grace. As you both note, without grace we cannot even seem to take hold of what God wants for us, and understanding that is a phenomenal gift.
-Peace
I think it's important to note that the do's and don'ts ARE important. They aren't the ends of Christ's word, but rather the means to the ends (paired with Grace, of course). We as humans often need physical things to keep us in line, and to build our understanding. That is why the do's and don'ts are important.
On the physical needs topic, I think it's instructional to look at Christ's miracles and how he helped different people. For most miracles, Christ had to do something physical to build up the recipient's Faith, before the Miracle would work. For example, when he healed a blind man, he spit in the dirt to create a little clay, and placed that on the person's eyes. With our modern understanding of medicine, I think it's clear that clay will NOT cure a person's blindness, but Christ could see into that blind man's soul and know that he needed something more than just Christ's words to heal him. However, there were other people that only needed His words. For example, if you look at Matthew 8: 7-13 the Roman centurion asked Jesus to heal his servant, and Jesus said He would come heal him. But the centurion responded that he wasn't worthy enough for the Lord to enter his house, and Jesus' word was enough to heal the man. Jesus responded that He had never seen such great Faith among all Israel. Then Jesus healed the servant from afar. This is truly remarkable, because neither the servant nor the centurion needed Jesus to do anything physical, He just had to say the word.
Bringing this back to our topic at hand, I think most of us need phyisical reminders to keep us on track. That is why Jesus asked us to do--and don't do--so many things as part of His teachings. Yes it's true that we need to rely on the Grace of the Lord before we can truly "do" or "don't do" anything. But we ultimately have to do the physical things that the Lord asked us to do, or we are disobedient servants.
@Jake, referring to your first comment in reply to me (at 12:33am), thanks for that. And no offense taken on the "religious" moniker. I do see what you were conveying. Still, I'm glad I got the chance to offer that distinction, as it may help other readers.
As for visiting your blog, well, I've been aware of your being Mormon/LDS. I'd been encouraged by your comments here, but I can't deny that I'd hoped they might be *despite* that rather than, as it seems, said to support it. I'm sorry, but while I realize the LDS church describes itself as Christian, there's just such overwhelming testament to the contrary (of course, by those outside the church). I started to reply to just a few basic points, but realized this isn't really the place.
Look, I realize that even stating the above will be an affront to some, and likely you, unless you've grown to just accept that there are such clear differences of opinion. You could argue that, just as I pointed people to the bible, I ought to read the book of Mormon (and be educated in your tradition) to know its asserted truth. But as an orthodox (little "o", not Eastern Orthodox) Christian, I hold to sola scriptura (the bible is the only inspired and authoritative word of God. For those interested, this is one of the 5 solas, http://en.wikipedia...., that were re-captured in the Reformation--though again are communicated in the bible, as is clarified in many places, including here: http://www.fivesolas...) So I can't regard the Book of Mormon, or Joseph Smith, as authoritative.
I realize that, like Christianity itself, regarding the bible alone as a sole authority will seem "so narrow" to many readers. I get that. Again, it's what one comes to understand by a complete reading of the bible, with the Holy Spirit's illumination, and again as has been recaptured and recommunicated many times in history.
Some will note again I'm being careful not to just regard this understanding (the solas) as "another teaching". Sadly,the faith has frequently been challenged (often severely) by the work of men who have taught things in contradiction to the above. The good news (well, not THE Good News) is that all such errant teaching has been refuted, as have been all contentions against it. (It's really interesting to observe how so many want to keep making the arguments, as if they're new and clever, when in fact they've often been refuted many times over thousands of years.)
This brings us full circle to the theme of the blog entry. We tend to think that our modern minds are so much more sophisticated than those of the past. Heck, I think most tend to diminish the intellect of people (as a whole) as recent as only the early 1900's. And yet very smart people have existed, for generations and millenia. Whenever we think we've got a leg up on the past, we fall prey to Santayana's aphorism about being condemned to repeat the past if we fail to remember it.
I'll conclude by saying that I realize all this will smack some as yet another example of a Christian "shoving their religion down people's throats". Um, check that. I'm not. I don't know who you are (reading this), so I can't be doing that "to you", as an individual. Rather, I'm simply presenting what I've seen and heard, like the apostles in the Bible, and as God commands. Our job is to glorify God and point people to him. He absolutely can do the rest, if it's in his will. That's the grace alluded to above. I pray it for all of you (and especially for you, Jake, if perhaps God has indeed started to open your eyes to his truth. But if not, I hope we can continue to work together as we have over the years. Nothing's changed. I'm not the judge in this matter. God's got it all under control.)
@Jason, you make great points. Thanks.
@Jake, as for your comment immediately above, no, of course. I've not yet felt any need to stop the discussion. I realize it may be a more difficult one after my comments above.
And of course we've yet to hear from the atheists and agnostics you referred to. :-) I'll just ask if they'd consider carefully all that's been said to this point, if not give more serious consideration to what they'd contend against, rather than fight the straw man version so typical of such beliefs. Indeed, I'd contend they should face how much of a belief (yes, belief) that is, putting stake in what they too have seen and heard. A useful retort (for those seriously open to critical thinking) is "You've Got to Believe Something", at http://www.str.org/s...
If you really want to pick the atheist vs christian fight, I'll say this isn't the place to bash that out. And really, I may not be a good a match for you. Take in instead the very cogent, reasoned, and deeply intellectual debates here: http://www.reasonabl... Or listen to the podcasts there (they're not for Christians, they're mainly for those who would argue against it, though from a perspective of supporting it). Another such podcast is at http://www.rzim.org/...
Of course, I realize that those on the other side could point to many of their own apologetics. I put my faith in the historically successful line of those who have contended for the faith. Again, going back to the main theme here, it's all been said and refuted before. I don't (for now) need to build up my strength to argue against every attack, when there are so many more effective debaters I can point to, instead. For those who really want to understand both sides, those resources are awesome.
But getting back to your comment, Jake, calling the "do's and don'ts" the "means to the ends", well, we have to be careful. First, I realize you said they need to rely on Grace.
For other readers, let's be clear: as for the dont's (the law and the commandments), we can't keep them. Nope. I know that will blow some away. Those exist to drive us to despair in our sin and to lead us to Christ (Galations 3:24). Paul elaborated on this in Romans 7, particularly in 7:19, "For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing." And this was not his state before conversion. It was after, something Augustine himself ultimately came to realize.
Indeed, he even said: "It’s one thing, after all, not to lust; another not to go after one’s lusts. Not to lust is the mark of the altogether perfect person; not to go after one's lusts marks the person who is fighting." (http://www.monergism...%20Romans%2007.14-25.pdf). We are only perfected by way of the imputed righteousness of Christ, in our salvation by faith. That's the ultimate end of the Grace we're talking about here. And we won't experience that perfection in ourselves until our glorification in heaven.
Short of that graceful salvation, our good works are as filthy rags (Is 64:6).
As for the discussion of miracles, well, I have to contend again. You say, "Christ could see into that blind man's soul and know that he needed something more than just Christ's words to heal him". I don't know: in all cases it of course took only Christ's will to heal. It certainly took nothing more, but I understand you're referring to the man. Indeed, it was always by the recipients faith that Christ did the healing. It just seems a stretch to assert that he needed something more (but sure, if Christ saw such a need he could provide it.)
At this point I feel like I'm bordering on contentious/ornery. But it's true that we are commanded to "contend for the faith". Whenever a statement is made that isn't supported biblically, we have to question it. It's tempting in our human nature for us to try to come up with explanations. Of course, maybe you can point to more resources to back up that contention. I don't mean to conclude that you cannot. But otherwise, we're challenged to think twice before trying to assert something new. There is no new revelation, only the Holy Spirit illuminating us to see the truth that is there, and always has been. (http://www.monergism...)
Just trying to bring things full circle again. :-) Hope the above is helpful to some. Time for bed.
I think I've commented on this in the past, but thank you (again) for taking in leadership in your witness, being willing to content on behalf of the Bible and its Truth.
Also, just a note to your last comment about miracles: as I read it, I was struck by the story of the man who was healing and casting out demons in Christ's name, without even being a follower of Christ, and the man wasn't even an apostle. The Apostles had tried to stop him, but Jesus said "If he acts in my name, then it IS in my name", and the Truth was revealed in the fact that the recipients were healed by this man, both by their faith and by his. "If you had faith even so small as a mustard seed, you could command that mountain to move into the sea." Just coming alongside in agreement with you that the faith is the mover there, the channel for the power of God.
-peace
I read Confessions in college for my philosophy of religion course. Such a good book! I recently got out some of my old books to read again and Confessions is on the list... I also bought City of God after reading Confessions for my philosophy course but I never started it... now I can't wait to get on it after your post. But first I have to finish reading C.S Lewis' Mere Christianity, which is a such a good read for explaining what's the core of Christianity, or being a Christian rather, which touches some of the same points you made in your comments above.
Anyway, nice post.
@Jay, great call on the reading of old books in general. In fact, some may know CS Lewis waxed eloquent on the subject. Here's the full text of the short article, which was his introduction to yet another classic: http://jollyblogger....
But yes, let's include his own Mere Christianity on that list. I think it may have been among the first to really start cracking my own skepticism, melting away the layers of "truth" I'd been fed (or come up with on my own) for some 40 years. Even better, the book's available online in some places, as in: http://www.bringyou.... (or, again, in nearly any library with books on tape/disk/mp3)
To restate a point, he notes in his introduction, "In this book I am not trying to convert anyone to my own position...[but]...to explain and defend the belief that has been common to nearly all Christians at all times...I am not writing to expound something I could call ‘my religion’, but to expound ‘mere’ Christianity, which is what it is and was what it was long before I was born and whether I like it or not."
Of course, the rest of the book is very compelling, not some dry history lesson. He helps the reader wend their way from our natural position at enmity with God to understand what He has really said and taught, all the while challenging our natural conclusions on things.
I like the way John Piper put it, in writing about Lewis (who many will know also wrote the Narnia series), saying Lewis' writing "convinced me that rigorous, precise, penetrating logic is not inimical to deep, soul-stirring feeling and vivid, lively, even playful imagination. He was a 'romantic rationalist.' He combined what almost everybody today assumes are mutually exclusive: rationalism and poetry, cool logic and warm feeling, disciplined prose and free imagination." (http://www.desiringg...)
Wow: first Jake, then Jason, now Jay...who's next? Do we have a James in the house? :-)
"As for visiting your blog, well, I've been aware of your being Mormon/LDS. I'd been encouraged by your comments here, but I can't deny that I'd hoped they might be *despite* that rather than, as it seems, said to support it."
I was making the comments despite my religion, not trying to support it. I was considering this an interesting discussion, I was not trying to proselyte, if that's what you mean. The only reason I wanted to point out my religion is if anybody is curious where I'm coming from, nothing more. :)
As far as Mormon's not being Christian, I have grown to accept that there are clear differences of opinion, and I have learned to have thick skin. I served an LDS mission in Italy, and we are a very small religion there. I don't think I need to remind anybody that the Roman Catholic Church is based there, and the population is 99% Catholic (I don't know the real population percentage, but you get the point). So when I was in Italy, I was called anything from an evil doer to a cultist because of my religion, so nothing you have said here will phase me. :)
But I am curious to know what your definition of Christian is, because I think you must believe it is a lot more than this quote from your comment earlier, "Being a Christian is an exciting daily walk doing our best to do what God commands." If that is your definition, then I would assert that Mormons are Christians. Our God is Jesus Christ, and we do our best to do what He commands.
On a side note--you may already know this but many of your readers may not--the true name of our church is not "Mormon Church" but "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints". One scripture in the Book of Mormon states, "For if a church be called in Moses’ name then it be Moses’ church; or if it be called in the name of a man then it be the church of a man; but if it be called in my name then it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel." Mormon is just a nickname that was given to us by everybody else. :)
I also want to make it clear that we do not place the Book of Mormon above the Bible, but we consider it to be "Another Testament of Jesus Christ" (quoted from the title page of the Book of Mormon). The goal of the Book of Mormon is to bring more people in the world to a belief of Jesus Christ. If someone were to read the Book of Mormon and decide to go join the Catholic Church because of it, we'd consider that a good thing. I will not lie, we would prefer if they'd join our church, but if they were not a Christian before reading the book, and then became one because of it, we are happy that we could help. Of course, people could do the same thing reading the Bible, I am just saying that we don't place any more importance on the Book of Mormon than we do the Bible.
As for your comment, "But I am curious to know what your definition of Christian is, because I think you must believe it is a lot more than this quote from your comment earlier, 'Being a Christian is an exciting daily walk doing our best to do what God commands.'"
Well, the quote was someone else's. I was just changing the phrasing of one point of emphasis. Still, I would assert that his statement was more in the indicative (what we are) rather than the imperative (what we are to do). He was saying the "being" Christian is an exciting walk..., not that by sharing that exciting walk, one is a Christian.
(For more on indicatives vs imperatives, and indeed if you're liking the line of thinking I've been presenting, I'll give a lot of credit to a podcast/radio show called The White Horse Inn, which is a weekly panel of theologians/teachers who get together to talk through matters of theology, in a way that any can understand: whitehorseinn.org)
Back to the differences between the LDS church and Christianity (in the orthodox, that is biblical, sense), as you said Jake you're well aware of the differences in opinions on the matter. I picked just one point for discussion, which is the LDS church's appeal to external revelation. Another is that LDS teaching on salvation is very different from the bible's.
It can be hard for some to tell the difference (and as someone who was raised Catholic and then later learned that what I was taught was not what was in the bible, I can understand that challenge.) For those interested in more details, here's one presentation of distinctions in Christian vs LDS understanding of salvation: http://www.mormonsin...
As one more small point (small to say, but huge in significance), it sure seems that the LDS faith is conditioned on good works. Indeed, they've been a repeated theme in your comments. But biblical salvation is purely and simply based on faith in Jesus Christ, and that as a gift of grace. None merits it, lest they boast in those good works. (Ephesians 2:8,9) Good works are the fruit, not the source, of our salvation and of the spirit in us. (Galatians 5:22, Ephesians 2:10, John 15:8).
Still, I don' t want to get in a "bible dart throwing" war. Rather, it seems an appropriate time to refer to another classic of the Christian faith, JI Packer's "Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God".
He was relating a real conversation of the past between two people who some might assert were on opposite ends of the theological spectrum. He was trying to show how/whether they may conclude they were indeed on the same side:
--------------
"...I suppose we are to draw daggers. But before I consent to begin the combat, with your permission I will ask you a few questions....
Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved that you would never have thought of turning to God, if God had not first put it into your heart?" "Yes," says the veteran, "I do indeed." And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by anything you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ? "Yes, solely through Christ"
But, Sir, supposing you were at first saved by Christ, are you now somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?" "No, I must be saved by Christ from first to last." Allowing, then, that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power? "No."
What, then, are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother's arms? "Yes, altogether." And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to preserve you unto His heavenly kingdom? "Yes, I have no hope but in Him."
Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election, my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things wherein we agree.
----------
So indeed, "instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us," I'd wonder simply if you would answer each of those questions in the affirmative?
Don't get me wrong: I don't mean this to be an inquisition. To me a lot of this discussion of theology (between those on opposing sides) is like any debate or indeed a conversation between folks representing different technologies (albeit with eternal consequences), and the fights that often arise around them. Half the battle can be avoided by finding out where we are indeed they may be on the same page. I just offer the above as a way to help determine that.
Otherwise, we can't just "lay aside our differences" when the foundation of the gospel is on the line. The bible says clearly, in Galatians 1:8, that we are not to be misled by the apostles "or an angel from heaven" if they should present a gospel contrary to that in the bible. I'm sorry, but that's exactly what Joseph Smith claims happened to him. And do you regard the Book of Mormon as authoritative (if not of first importance, as you say)? We cannot.
As for your hope that folks may be brought to salvation by way of the LDS church, I can agree to that if as you say they are presented the Bible, and the true unvarnished Gospel. Roman's 1:16 repeats that "the Gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes". God in his mercy can (and will) save any he chooses, regardless of their station, race, education, or other condition (and indeed, regardless of their good works and even despite their most heinous offenses, if repentant).
But I would lament someone taking a longer rather than a more direct road to hearing the gospel, and fighting to try to interpret the bible in the context of teaching that does not systematically represent the complete (and sole) counsel of the bible.
Finally, and again wanting to remain in charitable accord, as for the Mormon/LDS distinction, I'm aware of it and try to remain sensitive to it. Careful readers will note that I have used the latter term only (LDS) except when first clarifying your background which you had only alluded to. I said then "Mormon/LDS" simply because many may not recognize the latter.
Anyway, looking forward to your thoughts. The comments have indeed gone down a different path than the original entry, but as we're all remaining cordial, and in that God is being glorified throughout, I don't mind at all. Thanks to (and I pray blessings may be on) those who may be following along diligently.
It is true, we do believe in what you termed "external revelation", but we call it modern revelation. We ask the question, is God's word in the Bible enough for today? Does the Bible tell you how you should handle ALL modern problems and difficulties? Does God not care about his children today? Why would he have talked to his children through Prophets from Adam to Peter, and then stop? There are literally thousands (if not millions) of different interpretations of the Bible...how will we know what the True interpretation is if God doesn't tell us (for He is it's true author)? We believe that new revelation from God is just as important today as it was in 6000 BC, and in 60 AD. Anyway, I know what your response to this will most likely be, as I've had this discussion with other religions about this topic many times, but I just wanted to give you my Church's perspective. But feel free to respond anyway if you wish. :)
Your second point is that our interpretation of Salvation is different from the Bible. The only thing that I would say in response is a wholehearted plea: I would much prefer if you (and your readers) would find information about our beliefs from our Church instead of from websites written by people that hate our Church. That article you linked to has a lot of misunderstandings of our definition of Salvation. I'm sure parts of it are true, but the first paragraph has a lot of false information, so I admit that I didn't read very far beyond that. Here is a starting point for learning our true beliefs on Salvation: http://is.gd/4v9a Again, I don't expect that your opinions on Salvation will be changed after reading that article, but I hope you at least understand better what my Church believes.
Your third point is true, we do believe that after this life we will be judged on our good works, combined with Faith and Repentance. Again, this is a topic that is debated between most Evangelical religions and the LDS church, and it sounds to me like you fall in line with the Evangelicals. Let me clarify that...there are a LOT of religions out there that stem from a common set of beliefs, one of these being that Grace is a free gift for all, and that accepting Christ is all we need to be saved. I group all of these religions into the term Evangelical, largely because that is what it was called in Italy (the second largest Religion there behind Catholicism is called Evangelici). So you may not consider yourself and "Evangelical", but it's just my own personal definition for these groups. :)
If your definition of Christian is based on these 3 things (among others, I suppose), then I understand your viewpoint. My Church's definition of the term Christian is anybody who believes that Christ is the Son of God and that His purpose is to save God's children. I know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that through him we can all obtain Eternal Salvation.
Personally, and I think I speak for my Church here as well, we love the fact that there are so many religions out there based on Jesus Christ's Gospel. Because that means that more and more people will be brought to Christ, and that is what we hope for, in fact it's our primary goal. So I don't want to persuade you to believe in my religion if you are happy where you are today.