Antichrist

This entry is actually anti-climatic. With an entry like "antichrist" you would expect some high spirited show-down, but in reality it is pretty simple. An antichrist is just anyone who is against the gospel of Christ.

The scriptural definition of "antichrist" can be found in 1 John 2:22:

22Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

Another definition can be found in the LDS Bible Dictionary:

A word used by John to describe one who would assume the guise of Christ, but in reality would be opposed to Christ. In a broader sense it is anyone or anything that counterfeits the true gospel or plan of salvation and that openly or secretly is set up in opposition to Christ. The great antichrist is Lucifer, but he has many assistants both as spirit beings and as mortals.

So an antichrist could be anyone against being a good person in general or saying that Christ wasn't who he says he was. With that last one there could be lots of people who would fit under the category of antichrist, but I think where it becomes a problem is when you start trying to convince others of your ideas or telling Christians themselves that they are deceived. You can argue points this way and that, but in the end you can't argue faith.

An example of an antichrist who came to a tragic end can be found in Jacob 7. In short, there is a man named Sherem who openly opposed the gospel declaring that there was no Christ. He was so confident in himself that he sought out the current prophet Jacob to try and prove him wrong.

I've been in situations like this. I'm not saying that I'm a prophet, but I've kind of found these situations more than a little pointless. As I said before, you can't argue faith. If someone has it, you can't really smash it. If someone doesn't have it, you can't argue it into them. I have rarely met someone who for reasons of faith are bitterly against our church, but instead have problems with some historical or scientific reasoning that doesn't make sense to them. I've kind of realized that whether a religious conversation is going to go well with mutual respect or if it is going to turn into me sitting there while they spew angrily at me can be based off of their response to two questions. Both of which it would be a good idea of we all answered ourselves either with a "yes" or a "no":

1. If you had all of your scientific and historical questions answered and resolved, would it be enough for you to enter the water's of baptism and unite with us in our faith?

2. If God gave you a personal revelation confirming to your heart in a way that you could not deny, that this was the true church and that you were to join it, would it be enough for you to enter the water's of baptism and unite with us in our faith?