In Sunday school yesterday, the instructor provided a definition of an anti-Christ that I thought was overbroad. She said that an anti-Christ is anyone who says that there is a way to heaven other than the way taught by the LDS church. I think she is wrong. By her definition, everyone who believes in a life after death that involves some type of paradise would automatically be considered an anti-Christ unless they were LDS. It seems to me that Alma 30 was meant to show us that an anti-Christ is simply someone who teaches things that are diametrically opposed to the fundamental teachings of Christ and further that they are taught with the knowledge that Christ is real. Korihor admited to believing in Christ and still taught these things. That seems completely different than someone having a slightly different idea of who Christ is...
Am I wrong here?