There is one parallel that has exercised the experts more than all the others put together, and that is the puzzling relationship between Enoch and the Son of Man. No question has been more diligently discussed in the journals than the identity of the son of Man; few scholars can resist the temptation of pointing out with magisterial ease just who he is, but with little or no agreement among themselves. Aside from Jesus, it is Enoch who of all the candidates lays by far the most convincing and challenging claim to the Son of Man title “as teacher, wise one, advocate, prophet, ideal man, bringer of salvation, revealer of hidden mysteries, etc.”

The key to the identification as R. Otto sees it is that Christ “lived and preached in the role and in the name of the Son of Man, just as Enoch also in his preaching was a functionary of the Son of Man and his Righteousness.” In 1 Enoch 37:71, “Enoch has become the eschatological Saviour himself, the ideal of the pious community,” officially designated as the “Son of Man.”

Though earlier scholars were disturbed by the outright identity of the two (R. H. Charles deliberately alters the ancient text to avoid it), their identity was fully recognized by ancient theologians; indeed, the Christian “tendency to identify Adam in all his characteristics with Jesus, who similarly is represented as ‘The Perfect Man,’” matches the practice of identifying Enoch also with Adam. Eusebius states the case thus: “The Son of Man and the Son of Adam are the same thing, so that Adam and Enosh are the same; carnal (sarkikon) through Adam, rational (logikon) through Enosh.”

He also makes it perfectly clear that by Enosh he means Enoch: “The Hebrews say that Enosh not Adam was the first true man. . . . He ‘was not found’ [said only of Enoch] means that truly wise men are hard to find. He withdrew from the world of affairs and thereby became the Friend of God [cf. Abraham]. The Hebrews call him ‘The Friend,’ signifying thereby the favor (charin) of God.” For the Mandaeans, the Son of Man is necessarily the Son of God, “for he is Enosh, the first man created,” in the direct image of God.

In the intertestamental period, “the Son of Man tradition [was] in a fluid state and could be adapted to any Messianic Figure.” The individual is unique, but the type can be shared. Thus in the Dead Sea Scrolls Michael is the Son of Man, but for that matter so is Melchizedek.

Nah, I’ll bet there are at least 8 or 9 who will admit to it openly. The rest just keep it to themselves and are willing to wait and see.

I know of at least 8 and that’s only in a small, relatively insignificant area. My guess is that the numbers are well into the hundreds.

So pretty much, for the outside of Mormonism view, Daniel was saying “someone will come”, and Christ, by taking up the title Son of Man was saying “I am that someone.”

Jacob: sorry for the mistake.
Mark N.: You may well be right.

Nah, I’ll bet there are at least 8 or 9 who will admit to it openly. The rest just keep it to themselves and are willing to wait and see.

SON OF MAN [Heb ben 'adam; Aram bar 'enash; Gk (ho) huios (tou) anthropou]. A Semitic expression that typically individualizes a noun for humanity in general by prefacing it with “son of,” thus designating a specific human being, a single member of the human species. Its meaning can be as indefinite as “someone” or “a certain person.” Used in Dan. 7:13-14 to describe a cloud-borne humanlike figure, the expression–or at least the figure so designated in Daniel–became traditional in some forms of Jewish and earlhy Christian speculation which anticipated a transcendent eschatological agent of divine judgment and deliverance. In the NT that agent is almost universally identified with the risen Jesus.

Also, about the missionary library — I believe _Articles of Faith_ was removed from the list around the time I went (1993).

When I left on my mission in 2003, the missionary library consisted of Jesus the Christ, Articles of Faith, A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, Truth Restored, Gospel Principles, Our Heritage, and Our Search for Happiness. My mission president also permitted the CES Book of Mormon manual, and a book entitled Drawing on the Powers of Heaven by Grant Von Harrison.
In 2004, a few months before I finished my mission, Preach My Gospel was introduced, replacing that awful purple training guide. Along with this introduction, the library was changed. True to the Faith was added. A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, and Articles of Faith were removed. (I don’t fully recall if there were any other changes to the library. I wasn’t affected too much by this because I had already read the books.)

Also, about the missionary library — I believe _Articles of Faith_ was removed from the list around the time I went (1993). A distribution center stocking boy told me the book was dropped because it contained racially charged statements. I have never that book all the way through, but maybe Talmage said some unsavoury things about first nation peoples–Indians, etc. Or any number of other things… I don’t know.

BRM’s comments about “Jesus and Mary …” seem to indicate his feelings about the Savior’s marital status. I have never heard any of the Brethren counter his comments.

BRM, Robert Millet, and GeoffJ

Use caution when searching google, the reference was not to something GeoffJ said, but to a comment by Mark Butler.