Mormon straw men

[Huiou_Theou]

To my fellow Catholics,
I realize that the statement I make in the last post is my own in some respects, so I wish to at least show why I think the way I do – and allow others to correct me should I have erred in some manner.

The alternate interpretation of Luke 12:48 comes from arguments like the one I outline here:

Luke Chapter 12
The servant who knew his master’s will, but did not maker preparations nor act in accord with his will shall be beaten severely; and the servant who was ignorant of his master’s will but acted in a way deserving of a severe beating shall be beaten only lightly.

Is this a case for the Catholic Doctrine of Inivincible Ignorance? Or not?

Since my view is not in agreement with others on that thread, but one not in conflict with formal doctrine, I need to take responsibility for this location of hope and not assign it to all indiscriminantly as an official position of all Catholics as I appear to have done. Please read that thread if you are interested in making a correction, because it goes deeper than this thread’s comments on the issue.

The apologetic placed forward by CA cites:
Rom. 2:15
to the same effect.

Roman 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

The RSV emphasizing my thought over the mere KJV by stating: “accusing or perhaps excusing them.”

I haven’t checked the Greek, but since some translations of this passage leave latitude for alternate explanations, I am hesitant to cite it as the primary reason for this hope – although I don’t condemn the passage in Rom as a possible source of this hope.

I look forward to any comments to those inclined…

–Andrew.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

CA is full of such misrepresentations. If you wanted to query every one of them, you would be doing it for a very long time!

I certainly haven’t seen that yet, but I sure can understand why you might jump to that conclusion. I am not against working through the CA material as I have time.

I take it you are referring to this verse in the Book of Mormon:
…

That appears to match the quote from the CA cited article, yes.

I will try. That requires going a little deep into theology. The word devil literally means “accuser”. Here is a quote from an Internet definition:

I am familiar with the meaning of Devil, so I ought to be able to follow your logic.

In the Day of Judgment, each will play their appropriate role before the judgment bar of God. Satan accuses us, while Jesus pleads on our behalf, or acts as our advocate.

In the context of LDS thinking, the judgement happens only after all have died – and this “time” of waiting is what permits the baptisms for the dead to take place?

Jesus cannot plead before the throne of mercy on our behalf. Satan is there to accuse us; but we have no advocate to plead our cause. Therefore Satan wins, and we become his, or a part of his kingdom. So in Alma when it says that Satan will “seal you his,” that means that he has acquired the grip on us from which we cannot escape. He takes us to hell where he is, and we become a member of his infernal kingdom.

Ok, then the “sealing” appears not to be an act in and of itself, but a statement of foregone conclusion of the verdict before a trial?

So, by extension, if a marriage is “sealed” is that a guarantee of the outcome of something to do with marriage in LDS theology also? (eg: is the word used consistently in LSD doctrine & scripture ?)

 

[zerinus]

In the context of LDS thinking, the judgement happens only after all have died – and this “time” of waiting is what permits the baptisms for the dead to take place?

Judgment takes place at the point of resurrection, and not all are resurrected at the same time. There is also a partial judgment that takes place immediately after death, when the righteous are taken to a happy place in the spirit world, and the wicked to an unhappy place, awaiting the resurrection. But there is a gap between death and the resurrection, during which souls are in the spirit world. It is during this interval that gospel preaching among the dead can still take place, repentance can be granted, and vicarious baptisms for the dead on earth can take place.

Ok, then the “sealing” appears not to be an act in and of itself, but a statement of foregone conclusion of the verdict before a trial?

Something like that I suppose.

So, by extension, if a marriage is “sealed” is that a guarantee of the outcome of something to do with marriage in LDS theology also? (eg: is the word used consistently in LSD doctrine & scripture ?)

That is an entirely different subject. Words have different meanings in different contexts. Marriage is a contract. That contract can either be made for time or for eternity. To make that contract binding for eternity requires priesthood keys that are held only by the LDS Church. A contract can also be annulled by the same legal processes that bond it. Again, the LDS Church has those keys. They are the same “keys of the kingdom” that were given to Peter, by which he could “bind on earth and it would be bound in heaven, and loose on earth and it would be loosed in heaven”. The LDS Church possesses this binding and loosening power to make contracts binding in heaven, or to undo such a contact if required. The contract can also be broken through transgression. Just as adultery may break a marriage contract here on earth, a serious transgression may break a an eternal contract made to endure in heaven.

zerinus

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Zerinus, we have a bit of a problem. I am able to understand and work with Teancum’s answers, and should he make a mistake – I would allow for that. I am not interested in trapping a person in simple ignorance for a quick victory.
I am having difficulty with your answers – and I assume it to be unintentional on your part.

There is a difference in my mind between recorded fantasy and reality – a fantasy or fictional construction is only as consistent as the mind of its creator – reality holds true even when any mistakes in a personal memory or nonsubstantial point are removed from the argument.

However, when a fantasy or lie is perpetuated — the half truths required to hide the contradiction of the base half truth themselves will contradict the truth – and at some point this become irreconcilable – and the lie exposed.

One may mistakenly use a fallacy in support of a truth, which doesn’t make it “untrue” but it does make it unproven by that argument – so when a fallacy is perpetuated accidentally the discussion needs to back up and make a correction of some kind – otherwise the discussion is not quite honest.

Judgment takes place at the point of resurrection, and not all are resurrected at the same time. …

Unfortuneately that complicates things, as in my earlier questions I am uncertain if some or all the “resurrected” are mortal (or not) in LDS thinking-- by your argument the words used by the LDS are not based on historical christianity…

But with respect to the Devil you have used a common definition of the word, which I would think is derived from historical christianity. So, in some way I would appreciate your clearing up to what extent LDS is based on historical Christianity , for obviously it is to a certain degree.

I obviously need to think about this for a while.

… more …

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Regarding the idea of “sealed”

Something like that I suppose.

That leaves me quite disconcerted. Let me illustrate – there is the word hearse – and the word re-hearse. Apparently these two words are totally different, but in fact they are not. There is a old plow which is called a hearse which has a purpose, and a visual shape. The modern meanings of the word derive from the same plow – but different characteristics – the purpose (rehearse) – and the visual (hearse). The longer a word exists, the more varied can become the meaning – and the more examples there are to prove the meanings of the word.

Now the LDS church is quite young and so the more its new theological words vary in meaning, the more it gives the bad appearances of being constructed to be like a camelion rather than explain things.

Marriage is a contract. That contract can either be made for time or for eternity.

In the Catholic/biblical understanding, your statement rings partially true – so I am wondering about vocabulary yet again…

Adultury does not sunder the one flesh union if it ever was truly put in place. That is the meaning of Jesus’ word’s:

Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
Mark 10:7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
Mark 10:8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
Mark 10:9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Catholics do acknowledge there is a thing such as “pornea”, which includes fornication, prostitution, and adultury – none of which are a valid marriage – but we don’t say that a valid marriage where the two became one “flesh” is ever abrogated by violation of a contractural agreement. There has been a change in the people’s flesh – their very body. A seed “dies” and becomes a plant, a man “dies” and takes on his wife’s flesh – a wife “dies” and takes on her husband’s flesh. Now I am not crudely speaking of Genes, though some epigenetics may be involved – but what I am trying to get at is that the flesh of a marrying couple which changes in some way. So until their flesh is different they are married.

But then, Jesus also points out that the “two” shall become one flesh, not the three, four or five… Adam was not given multiple wives, and in sin Cain took multiple wives. In these multiple marriages, when one marries a second wife – should the flesh change, he could no longer be married to the first one. If that were so, there could be no adultury because of the “flesh” being one – which is precisely what Jesus proves in this statement:

Matth 5:32, " … and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery"
This Jesus whos words will not pass away.

How, then, since the death of a Christian completes the transformation of their flesh into the flesh of Jesus so that they may be with him as his “one” bride inasmuch as they are all his flesh — How, then, can anyone speak of marriage in heaven to someone “other” than Jesus?

Isn’t it obvious that there is only one possibility – that all have become one flesh in heaven and therefore no exclusivity is possible – for to change the body at that point would be to condemn a person to hell.

To make that contract binding for eternity …

See above.

The issue about the keys is this – IS IT POSSIBLE for a priest to bind in heaven that all should hate Jesus and love the Devil? Or again, that all going to the lake of fire should be excused from their contract – and go to heaven? or even that one sinless person ought to go to hell? If this is not possible, then it should also be evident that there must be a way that these “keys” are restricted. And you need to justify that it is even POSSIBLE to bind something about marriage in the heaven(s)…

To return to our original point of departure on these issues – there appears to be a contradiction that I would like explained. In the interlude after death people are able to pay for their sins in LDS thinking – yet, baptism for the dead as a requirement means that anyone who is accidentally overlooked for baptism can never go to heaven even after their sins are totally paid for. The LDS position is purported to be based on Justice … so if one has paid, why is it that they should ever be kept out of an eternal reward of some kind?

 

[zerinus]

Regarding the idea of “sealed”

That leaves me quite disconcerted. Let me illustrate – there is the word hearse – and the word re-hearse. Apparently these two words are totally different, but in fact they are not. There is a old plow which is called a hearse which has a purpose, and a visual shape. The modern meanings of the word derive from the same plow – but different characteristics – the purpose (rehearse) – and the visual (hearse). The longer a word exists, the more varied can become the meaning – and the more examples there are to prove the meanings of the word.

Now the LDS church is quite young and so the more its new theological words vary in meaning, the more it gives the bad appearances of being constructed to be like a camelion rather than explain things.

In the Catholic/biblical understanding, your statement rings partially true – so I am wondering about vocabulary yet again…

Adultury does not sunder the one flesh union if it ever was truly put in place. That is the meaning of Jesus’ word’s:

Catholics do acknowledge there is a thing such as “pornea”, which includes fornication, prostitution, and adultury – none of which are a valid marriage – but we don’t say that a valid marriage where the two became one “flesh” is ever abrogated by violation of a contractural agreement. There has been a change in the people’s flesh – their very body. A seed “dies” and becomes a plant, a man “dies” and takes on his wife’s flesh – a wife “dies” and takes on her husband’s flesh. Now I am not crudely speaking of Genes, though some epigenetics may be involved – but what I am trying to get at is that the flesh of a marrying couple which changes in some way. So until their flesh is different they are married.

But then, Jesus also points out that the “two” shall become one flesh, not the three, four or five… Adam was not given multiple wives, and in sin Cain took multiple wives. In these multiple marriages, when one marries a second wife – should the flesh change, he could no longer be married to the first one. If that were so, there could be no adultury because of the “flesh” being one – which is precisely what Jesus proves in this statement:

Matth 5:32, " … and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery"
This Jesus whos words will not pass away.

How, then, since the death of a Christian completes the transformation of their flesh into the flesh of Jesus so that they may be with him as his “one” bride inasmuch as they are all his flesh — How, then, can anyone speak of marriage in heaven to someone “other” than Jesus?

Isn’t it obvious that there is only one possibility – that all have become one flesh in heaven and therefore no exclusivity is possible – for to change the body at that point would be to condemn a person to hell.

See above.

The issue about the keys is this – IS IT POSSIBLE for a priest to bind in heaven that all should hate Jesus and love the Devil? Or again, that all going to the lake of fire should be excused from their contract – and go to heaven? or even that one sinless person ought to go to hell? If this is not possible, then it should also be evident that there must be a way that these “keys” are restricted. And you need to justify that it is even POSSIBLE to bind something about marriage in the heaven(s)…

To return to our original point of departure on these issues – there appears to be a contradiction that I would like explained. In the interlude after death people are able to pay for their sins in LDS thinking – yet, baptism for the dead as a requirement means that anyone who is accidentally overlooked for baptism can never go to heaven even after their sins are totally paid for. The LDS position is purported to be based on Justice … so if one has paid, why is it that they should ever be kept out of an eternal reward of some kind?

Sorry Huiou Theou, I have read both your posts, and I haven’t a clue what you are arguing about or trying to prove. Both your posts appear to be gibberish, and don’t make much sense to me at all. Sorry, but can’t do any better.

zerinus

 

[Stephen168]

To return to our original point of departure on these issues – there appears to be a contradiction that I would like explained. In the interlude after death people are able to pay for their sins in LDS thinking – yet, baptism for the dead as a requirement means that anyone who is accidentally overlooked for baptism can never go to heaven even after their sins are totally paid for. The LDS position is purported to be based on Justice … so if one has paid, why is it that they should ever be kept out of an eternal reward of some kind?

An excellent question!!!

 

[teancum79]

But none will be overlooked when all is said and done. I suppose in theory that one really good person might have to wait longer than another, but none will lose this opportunity in the long run.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

There appears to be a contradiction that I would like explained…

Even that is gibberish, zerinus?

Let me refresh your memory then – using LDS member quotes – I trust they aren’t gibberish???

…
We baptize them because baptism is stated in the scriptures as a gospel requirement for salvation. No one can be saved without (a valid) baptism. The LDS Church is the only Church that has the authority from God to perform a valid baptism, on earth or (by proxy) in heaven. We baptise them in order to affect their salvation in heaven …

emphasis mine.

So to be blunt you have logically demonstrated that a person in “heaven” who has no valid baptism can not be “saved” until baptized. (period).
This sure isn’t the Christian idea of heaven or of salvation at all!
Vocabulary issue #1 what is “salvation” and “heaven” to you?

You ought to have known better than to use “new” words indiscriminantly without truly explaining their meaning – That’s misrepresentation – you claim to KNOW what Christians think and yet I begin to think you have purposely omitted several very important details.

Whatever explanation you make (or avoid) – your “learned” opinion is going to have to do some amazing twisting away from any historical Christan concepts and vocabulary to reconcile with the at least reasonable opinion of your co-LDS member!

Your words:

In LDS doctrine going to hell is not a permanent condition for all. It is a place to pay the price for your sins. Once that price is paid you can escape. Hell becomes a permanent state for those who commit the unpardonable sin.

emphasis mine.

So those in Hell actually pay the price, but they can never have salvation until they are proxy baptized by LDS on Earth – regardless of how much they have paid, to the amount needed, or even if more. That totally flies in the face of God’s justice as explained to me by you and your co-LDS friend. (It’s just a little injustice, maybe no one will notice?) There is a logical implication that people have REMAINED in hell or heaven “without salvation” for aeons – like an insane asylum isolation ward for the sane…

Now what detail is going to be proffered to alleviate that miscommunication?
And how will the new detail affect my understanding of what has already been partially misrepresented.

See your co-LDS who makes more sense than you:

IT is not very likely now and very imposable back in the early AD for everyone to hear about Christ and have a good understanding of his gospel and be baptized. (I don’t by unto the recite the prayer on the pamphlet and your good to go). Also we know that God is no respecter of persons (he treats everyone fairly and justly). If God where to forgive the sins of a man in Rome and invite him to heaven who accepted Christ, but send to hell a man in China who never had a chance to, but tried to live a good life and would accept the gospel if he could he ** could not be just.**

It clearly is injustice if someone pays the price in hell BUT are deprived of the fruits of that payment for more than a day of their time. Not even the Vine owner in Jesus’ parable held the pay of those “earning” it to the next day – The practice is forbidden in Jewish law as an injustice. The vine owner pays them later, but within the same day.

Catholics don’t hold a belief in indefinite and possibly infinite temporal detainment in Purgatory after the job is finished – Purgatory has only a superficial relationship to what you are explaining. Purgatory is where a person suffers loss – in essence what they have made in their soul which is unworthy of God’s presence but not evil enough to merit hell is “burned up”. If it is gone, whether at the moment of death here on earth – or after death in purgatory – the transformation (death of sin) is complete and they are ready for eternal life – to be one flesh with Jesus in their resurrected body, which is different from the earthly one before death.

1Cori 3:15 If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

But none will be overlooked when all is said and done. I suppose in theory that one really good person might have to wait longer than another, but none will lose this opportunity in the long run.

Sorry my post editor was up and idle for some time, and I didn’t notice you had posted before I pushed the button. Rather than edit it – let me just point out:

No one has told me how all these unbatized people are to be accounted for – so how can one absolutly GUARANTEE that they will all be baptized in the first place.
I haven’t even been told how the proxy knows who they are baptizing – and how one knows that a lying spirit isn’t deceiving them about the person they are baptizing. Surely LDS don’t expect to dig up all the Native American bones (assuming that not even one was destroyed) let alone the Indian, Polynesian, Mayan, etc. How can one be sure that absolutely not one person gets overlooked?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I Can’t sleep, so I thought I would do a short reference post of things which confuse me with respect to the LDS so far – I’m sure I’m missing something. Sorry if either of my last posts sounded gruff… confusion does that.

wisdom literature:

Prove 3:27 Withhold not good from them to whom it is due, when it is in the power of thine hand to do it.
Prove 3:28 Say not unto thy neighbour, Go, and come again, and to morrow I will give; when thou hast it by thee.

Torah/Law:

Levit 19:13 Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him: the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning

A Prophet.

Malac 3:5 And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not me, saith the LORD of hosts.

The psalms.

Psalm 84:11 For the LORD God is a sun and shield: the LORD will give grace and glory: no good thing will he withhold from them that walk uprightly

Of course there may be rational explanations for these conflicts, but I know I couldn’t represent an LDS honestly in an article without getting their take on this stuff. Suspending my traditional definitions and seeing how new ones work is difficult for me.

If someone has mis-stated something, clear it up and I’ll ignore the parts that depend on the mistake. (A slip of the keyboard is easy, I do it often enough…). Otherwise, please explain a bit more.

God bless all of you.

 

[zerinus]

Even that is gibberish, zerinus?

Let me refresh your memory then – using LDS member quotes – I trust they aren’t gibberish???

---

I think you just want to confuse the issue. The LDS doctrine of salvation and baptism for the dead is not really that difficult to understand. First of all, in our temples all the ordinances of the gospel are performed for the dead, not just baptism. That includes confirmation and laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, ordination to the priesthood, endowment, and marriage for eternity. Second, members of the Church have a special responsibility to search out their own ancestors as far back as possible, and perform these rites for them in the temples. Obviously some will have better luck at this than others, depending on where they live and how much information is available to them. Nobody will be able to trace their ancestors all the way back to Adam (although the Royalty think they can!), so we are all in the same boat. But we believe the Lord will reward our honest efforts, and eventually opportunities will be provided for the work to be done for all of them, during the Millennium perhaps or at some other time.

We believe that neither heaven nor hell is all one place, but they are graded. Heaven consists of three levels or kingdoms, and these ordinances are required to take one to the highest kingdom, not the lower ones. Those who enter one of the lower kingdoms are still considered “saved”.

LDS theology of salvation is mostly explained in the vision of heaven given to Joseph Smith, which you can find in Section 76 of the Doctrine and Covenants (as well as in other scriptures).

The LDS doctrine of the redemption of the dead is found in the vision given to Joseph F Smith, and recorded in Section 138 of the Doctrine and Covenants, as well as in several other scriptural passages.

zerinus

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

The more I read and learn about the LDS the More I realize how Blessed I am To be Catholic. I also see that as one of the ways to know that it is a man made religion. It just keeps getting more and more complicated.

Truly blessed are we by Holy Trinity in the Catholic and Apostolic Church. It is a difficult row we must hoe, but the Plan is straight and simple to see.

 

[why_me]

The more I read and learn about the LDS the More I realize how Blessed I am To be Catholic. I also see that as one of the ways to know that it is a man made religion. It just keeps getting more and more complicated.

Truly blessed are we by Holy Trinity in the Catholic and Apostolic Church. It is a difficult row we must hoe, but the Plan is straight and simple to see.

You don’t think that catholicism is complicated? It is very complicated. Lets me put it this way: for many non-catholics, the whole idea of intercession of the saints is a complicated issue as is purgatory. Catholicism is not so simple with its set prayers, rosaries, chaplets, feast days, novenas, etc. It just seems simple because you are a catholic. But good luck in explaining the issues with non-catholics. The whole idea of priesthood chasity can also be complicated not to mention nuns, and other lay people who become consecrated virgins.

Does all that sound simple to explain?

 

[teancum79]

Sorry my post editor was up and idle for some time, and I didn’t notice you had posted before I pushed the button. Rather than edit it – let me just point out:

No one has told me how all these unbatized people are to be accounted for – so how can one absolutly GUARANTEE that they will all be baptized in the first place.
I haven’t even been told how the proxy knows who they are baptizing – and how one knows that a lying spirit isn’t deceiving them about the person they are baptizing. Surely LDS don’t expect to dig up all the Native American bones (assuming that not even one was destroyed) let alone the Indian, Polynesian, Mayan, etc. How can one be sure that absolutely not one person gets overlooked?

Well we do the best we can with the informaiton we currently have. It is well within the realms of possibility (at least for LDS people) To have the names of persons needing to be baptized reveled directly. At this point I do not believe that that is a practice, but there needs to be a way to address those for whom no record has been kept on earth. When Christ returns the work will continue until it is all done. Under His direct guidance anything that nees to be done can be done.

 

[teancum79]

uh yeah catholicism is anything but simple. Thats not a bad thing, but it is complex. For example why do people kiss a chunk of wood on good Friday? Why is there a saint who is called a “perfect imitator of Christ” (sorry I forget his name but he helps you find lost stuff). Why would anyone pray to anyone other than God etc. Now I know there are reasons for these things in the catholic church, but they are hardly simple ideas for someone who grew up outside those traditions.

 

[Jerusha]

Surely LDS don’t expect to dig up all the Native American bones (assuming that not even one was destroyed) let alone the Indian, Polynesian, Mayan, etc. How can one be sure that absolutely not one person gets overlooked?

This will never get even close to being done in North America. Most Native tribes have a prohibition against unnecessary disturbance of the remains of theor ancestors, and have been successful, through freedom of religion, in getting legislation enacted to prevent violation of the graves of their ancestors by archaeologists. ibsgwatch.imagedjinn.com/learn/index.htm

 

[majick275]

uh yeah catholicism is anything but simple. Thats not a bad thing, but it is complex. For example why do people kiss a chunk of wood on good Friday? Why is there a saint who is called a “perfect imitator of Christ” (sorry I forget his name but he helps you find lost stuff). Why would anyone pray to anyone other than God etc. Now I know there are reasons for these things in the catholic church, but they are hardly simple ideas for someone who grew up outside those traditions.

what are you talking about? there is no catholic doctrine on kissing anything on good friday. I’ve never seen this. maybe some individuals do this but it’s not in the deposit of faith. are you referring to st anthony? he wasn’t perfect. he did set a good example for us. we only worship God and we make a distinction between prayers to God which are worship and thanks and supplications and “talking” to saints in the realization that they are still serving God according to his will. (that’s actually not radically different than mormonism) i agree it isn’t simple. that’s why the need for thorough catechesis in the conversion process. RCIA is the better part of a year. I think LDS retention rates would be excellent if they did the same. (although convert baptisms would sink like a greased rock)

 

[teancum79]

what are you talking about? there is no catholic doctrine on kissing anything on good friday. I’ve never seen this. maybe some individuals do this but it’s not in the deposit of faith. are you referring to st anthony? he wasn’t perfect. he did set a good example for us. we only worship God and we make a distinction between prayers to God which are worship and thanks and supplications and “talking” to saints in the realization that they are still serving God according to his will. (that’s actually not radically different than mormonism) i agree it isn’t simple. that’s why the need for thorough catechesis in the conversion process. RCIA is the better part of a year. I think LDS retention rates would be excellent if they did the same. (although convert baptisms would sink like a greased rock)

I went to a Good Friday mass a few years back and a large number of people bowed to and kissed a large peace of wood in the shape of a cross. I’m really not trying to attack catholic practices, but there is a lot that is not all the simple or easy to understand.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

You don’t think that catholicism is complicated? It is very complicated. Lets me put it this way: for many non-catholics, the whole idea of intercession of the saints is a complicated issue as is purgatory. Catholicism is not so simple with its set prayers, rosaries, chaplets, feast days, novenas, etc. It just seems simple because you are a catholic. But good luck in explaining the issues with non-catholics. The whole idea of priesthood chasity can also be complicated not to mention nuns, and other lay people who become consecrated virgins.

Does all that sound simple to explain?

Yes it quite simple to explain. And as one of only 4 Catholics in a family with members in about very protestant denomination (main stream) from Southern Baptist, Church of Christ, and Lutheran, to Non Dom. I have become fairly good at explain those things. But non of the things you listed are not even mandatory of Catholics no one is required to pray the Rosary, or any Chaplet or Novenas.
those are personal and private devotions. As for the Standard Rosary Pray if you would look at it once you have prayed it you have prayed to Gospel of you Lord Christ.

Feast Days are just that holidays in honor of the event or Saint of that day. Easter and Christmas are Feast days. not really all that complicated.