Talk:David the Prince

Contested deletion discussion closed

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Davidic line#David the Prince]] The anchor (#David the Prince) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... (your reason here) --ChrislamicLDS (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

not done editing

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... (your reason here) --ChrislamicLDS (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what needs to be fixed but this page needs to stay.

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... (your reason here) --ChrislamicLDS (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will fix it by saying it in my own words.

Sources

If David the Prince is an LDS concept, why are sources not related to the LDS church being used? To be sure, most Christian sects recognize the prophecy of a coming King, a Son of David. Most Christians interpret this as a reference to the Second Coming, when Christ (already established as a Son of David) will return to claim his Kingdom once and for all. However, the LDS interpretation appears to reference a second David, separate and distinct from Jesus Christ, so mainline Christian sources are not likely to be appropriate in understanding this concept. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the "Characteristics" and "Prophecy" sections from this article, as they used non-Mormon sources to cite the information, thus conflating the Mormon David the Prince figure with eschatological figures from other Christian traditions, without any source to indicate that such a conflation in proper. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The one source in this article discussed King David and the Davidic line, and didn't really support any of the claims in the article. I have redirected it to Davidic line, as it would not survive AfD. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]