Mormonism and Snakes on a Plane

[_Some Schmo]

Has anyone seen the movie Snakes on a Plane? I just watched it last night for the first time. It was on HBO for free, so I thought I’d give it 15 minutes and decide from there. I wasn’t very enthusiastic about it; I have to question the wisdom (or, at the very least, the artistic worth) of naming a movie after its premise, but whatever.

I ended up watching the whole thing, and two things struck me about it:

1) It’s gratuitous nature. Why does every victim have to be bitten somewhere particularly nasty? Does it have to be in the eye, the breast, the penis or the tongue? Sure, there were a few arm, leg and shoulder bites, but these were in the minority. I’m not overly critical of this; they are trying to make an impact as movie makers. It was just so over the top, however, that I think it distracts the viewer from becoming immersed in the story by constantly reminding them they’re watching a movie.
2) It’s a premise-centric movie (so much so that the title is named after it, as I said). In other words, it appears as though the writer(s) came up with this premise first, and then everything else in the story is introduced as a means to justify that premise. For example, in order to make a movie about snakes on a plane, the first problem you have to solve is, “Why are there snakes on a plane?” They solve this by suggesting it was a way for a murdering psychopath to eliminate a witness who was to testify against him. But that begs at least a hundred follow-up questions (and creates far more story problems than it solves): Why this method of murder? How could he arrange this in what appears to be a very short time frame? If they have the means to sneak a huge, disguised, self-exploding crate of snakes (designed to not actually hurt the snakes in the explosion; just to release them), why not sneak something on that’s more subtle, like a dude with say, I vial of poison? Etc… Etc… Etc…

It’s the second point I want to talk about.

Is this a good way to make a movie? Perhaps, if all you’re trying to do is entertain for a couple of hours, but I think the most effective movies and books are ones that begin with a premise, but do not let the premise dictate the details at the expense of realism, or plausibility. The premise is somewhat flexible in order to accommodate authenticity.

To me, this is exactly what Mormonism has become. You have this premise, and everything said about the church and its doctrine must conform to this central premise. The business of apologetics is the business of premise conforming.

It seems to me that when they wrote Snakes on a Plane, what they really did was come up with a premise and spent the rest of their time acting as bad premise apologists. Watching this movie was a little like reading a post by DCP, except the movie was more entertaining.

EDIT: by the way, I understand that without the premise, you don't have a movie. Just like the church; without the premise, you have no religion. There are good movies and bad movies... perhaps it's the same with religion. If so, Mormonism is a bad one, at least from an artistic point of view.

[_Scottie]

Yes, you are correct, but what exactly would you say the premise of Mormonism is?

I had a debate on the other board about what the basic core principles of Mormonism were.

I said that faith, repentance, baptism, temple ordinances, etc were core principles. I was chastised because, according to LoaP, accepting Jesus as the savior is THE core principle and everything else was "an appendage", as they put it. Everything else hinged on Jesus Christ.

I rebutted that, sure, this was at the top, but then doesn't everything else "hinge" on Joseph Smith being a prophet? And then it hinges on the Book of Mormon being true (as GBH stated), then it hinges on BY being the correct splinter group, etc.

So is the premise of Mormonism that Joseph Smith was a true prophet? The he restored the true gospel? The church as we know it today?

[_Some Schmo]

Yes, you are correct, but what exactly would you say the premise of Mormonism is?

I had a debate on the other board about what the basic core principles of Mormonism were.

I said that faith, repentance, baptism, temple ordinances, etc were core principles. I was chastised because, according to LoaP, accepting Jesus as the savior is THE core principle and everything else was "an appendage", as they put it. Everything else hinged on Jesus Christ.

I rebutted that, sure, this was at the top, but then doesn't everything else "hinge" on Joseph Smith being a prophet? And then it hinges on the Book of Mormon being true (as GBH stated), then it hinges on BY being the correct splinter group, etc.

So is the premise of Mormonism that Joseph Smith was a true prophet? The he restored the true gospel? The church as we know it today?

Yes, yes and yes.

I would say the premise is that there's an evolved god that thinks it's important to have a church here on earth, that he chooses certain ones to talk to and to act as his mouthpiece, that he only acknowledges that one church as his own, and that he restored it through Joseph Smith back in the early 1800's. That's my take on it. It's likely you'll get a different premise from every person you ask.

But you make a good point; the church is actually built on several shaky premises (and promises... haha!), not just one.

[_Sethbag]

I think the premise of the LDS church, in the context of the topic of this discussion, is that the LDS Church is "true". That's the entirety of the premise, and I think that everything else, including the details of the Gospel, etc. are appendages to it.

I'm not joking here, either.

[_Some Schmo]

I think the premise of the LDS church, in the context of the topic of this discussion, is that the LDS Church is "true". That's the entirety of the premise, and I think that everything else, including the details of the Gospel, etc. are appendages to it.

I'm not joking here, either.

*slaps forehead* That's it!

You know, when I was writing this up, that was the exact premise that was uppermost in my mind, but it slipped my mind as soon as Scottie asked for it.

I completely agree. You nailed it.

[_Scottie]

I have to say, Seth, you nailed it.

Apologetics will bend any evidence, so long as the church remains true.

Joseph Smith being a true prophet can be brought into question, as long as the church remains true.
Any statement made by any apostle or prophet can be turned into doctrine or opinion, based solely on which one makes the church true.
Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon can be brushed aside as "not found yet", despite tons of evidence that supports the alternative as long as the church remains true.

[_Brackite]

Has anyone seen the movie Snakes on a Plane?

Yes, I have seen that movie before. I liked wathing it.

It seems to me that when they wrote Snakes on a Plane, what they really did was come up with a premise and spent the rest of their time acting as bad premise apologists. Watching this movie was a little like reading a post by DCP, except the movie was more entertaining.

LOL!

[_Inconceivable]

I think the premise of the LDS church, in the context of the topic of this discussion, is that the LDS Church is "true". That's the entirety of the premise, and I think that everything else, including the details of the Gospel, etc. are appendages to it.

I'm not joking here, either.

Sethbag,

I'm willing to testify that is true.

Man, that's what it comes down to.

All the evil, all the good has little significance so long as the premise remains un-gored.

Thanks

[_bcspace]

I haven't seen that movie, but I'll wager that Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure is much better.