Hmm, maybe both... I mean, there are places in the bible stories where the Jesus character is a bit of a "jerk" (putting demons in pigs, killing fig trees for no good reason, dissing non-Jews, etc.).
So I'd argue that being "christlike" sometimes means being a jerk.
Jerks they are. No doubt.
Personally I wouldn't care about "christlike." I'd just like them to be kind, honest human beings. That, they're not.
Thank you for "hie-lighting" some of the conveniently left out assets of Jesus. Always nice to see the whole picture.
In addition, I don't see the GAs walking on water, raising from the dead, healing lepers and the blind* or even curing a common cold. So gotta go with "jerks" over "Christlike" even if you are omitting Jesus' off days when referring to his behavior.
Oh, and as far as driving the money changers out of temple---it's hard to drive yourself out.
*Also Jesus apparently did all this sans consecrated Kosher olive oil.
I never had the desire of being around them; so I thought they were overbearing assholes. That's when I wanted to believe that the church was true. Now it's real easy to see how terrible they really are.
Having been married by one of the current apostles and having met another one on multiple occasions I can tell you that they are dudes who think a lot of themselves. The narcissist in these guys is pretty damn high.
Neil Anderson, I met him on my mission. I went on splits with him for a day when he was in the area presidency. We kind of stayed in touch for a bit after my mission and I asked if he would do the temple thing for me when I got married. Obviously we didn't stay in touch after that.
He is a spectacular prick but I didn't see it at the time because Jesus didn't want me to see a person's faults just their title.
The other one was Dallin Oaks. Where I served my mission had a large collection of rather important embassies and he traveled to my mission regularly to grease the skids to get visas for missionaries. Also a a huge dick.
Interestingly we had a parade of visitors like that through my mission because of the location. One of the most memorable was the cadre of BYU types that included Dan Peterson. He would regale us with his superior knowledge and theories about early Christianity in the evening. My companion and I grew to hate him pretty quickly.
I was only about 14 or 15 when Mark E. Petersen came to our house for Sunday dinner after dedicating our chapel. At the time the feeling was very stunted and uncomfortable and looking back it seemed like he was slumming--doing his duty with the "little people from the village." Clearly he believed his own publicity. His wife never said more than hello and good-bye and clearly couldn't wait to get outa there.
If a combination of those characteristics satisfies the definition of "jerk", well, yes they are jerks.
There is likely considerable variation between them. But all of them are in the positions they are in because they aspired to having high-status positions of authority over large groups of people, and craved the experience of being in a position to receive respect, adulation and deference from hundreds of thousands of total strangers.
The Church organization gave them a vehicle for achieving those desires. One of the requirements for being a successful ladder climber in the LSD Church is the ability to project an image of humility (most of the time) while being anything but humble. But the veneer of humility is extremely thin and easily pierced.
As long as they are surrounded by flunkies, sycophants and groupies hanging on their every word, they do a good job of pretending that they think they're just regular folks who have somehow, just out of the blue, been given a huge amount of responsibility and authority over others. (They're just like the baby-kissing, hot-dog eating, politicians from plutocratic backgrounds who pretend like they grew up in a run-down trailer park, pinchin' pennies to get by just like all the other little people.)
But, if you've ever seen one of them in a position where they get the idea that one of the "little people" is not showing proper respect and deference? Whoa Nellie! You're going to see some red-faced fireworks!"
They take their pretentious titles very seriously...especially anything relating to rank and authority.
But if you're nothing but respectful, deferential and meek towards them in any brief encounter that you have with them, they will not likely kick you in the groin, pick your pocket or insult your physical appearance. So in that sense, they're jerks, but they're not total jerks.
If they would just repurpose them for use as deluxe spa & resort facilities, they could be really useful.
As it is, there's a lot of construction, but it's not constructive.
All that effort to build these weirdly ornate buildings...just to provide a space in which people can practice goofy handshakes and dress up in freaky costumes. I think the Freemasons already have this niche covered. It's time for ChurchCo to give it up and really give the members something to look forward to on "Temple Nights". Jacuzzis, meditation rooms, aroma therapy, scented hot baths, infrared therapy sleeping rooms, with filtered air and perfectly balanced humidity, juice bars....
I would probably rejoin just to get a discounted annual membership pass.
But no.... That would actually do the members some good, so it ain't gonna happen.
Wouldn't they have to be Christians, in order to be truly Christ-like?
Not.
A close relative was a GA, back in the days before correlation and fundamentalism took over. He was considered to be a "liberal Mormon". He sincerely thought the cult was helping people. He was kind to his lively, high-spirited wife. He loved his children, and was a good father--though he was often too busy to play. He was warm and affectionate. He and his wife were very humble about their high position, and were always trying to measure up, and not let anyone down. Mormonism was a heavy burden to them, and to all our family. I think the cult drained any arrogance out of him. He did not enjoy the celebrity. His wife refused to speak--ever--or even give a prayer in public.
So--as in any categorization of human beings, and trying to put people in convenient little boxes--the premise fails.
Not Christians, but probably not jerks--GA's are not all alike, just like real people are not all alike.
just that...generalizations. They are useful for considering the predominant traits of a broad category. A statement like "feral cats generally do not like to be petted" is, statistically, a good basis for predicting what type of experience you will have if you try to pet a feral cat. It does allow. however, for the possibility that on rare occasions you may encounter a feral cat that likes to be petted.
I don't doubt that your GA close relative was as you say. If I had to hazard a guess though, he was probably never on track for promotion into one of the top spots. The "GA" category includes everything from the First Presidency, the Q of 12 and many dozens of lower-level GAs, including the various Seventies and Regional Reps. The lower down you go in the hierarchy, the more likely you are to find the humble and unambitious among the ambitious ladder climbers.
What level of GA was your relative, if you don't mind saying?
I met Hinckley once, when he was second-in-command. I was astonished to find him condescending, arrogant and brusque.
It happened to be his birthday, and my Beehive girls had collaborated to make a lovely birthday card for him. I handed the card to him, and without so much as glancing at it, he drawled, "I'll see that it get to the Prophet."
I said firmly, "But it's for YOU, sir. For your birthday."
He seemed taken aback that anyone would venture to contradict him in any way. His face tightened ever-so-slightly, and he said, "Well, I'll give it to him anyway."
I wanted to say something smart-@$$ like, "I hope he enjoys your birthday card," but he was surrounded by his security goons, so I thought better of it. I was, and remain, singularly unimpressed.