I just listened to a presentation on "Cults" by Cecil Andrews, head of a Reformed "counter-cult" ministry, "Take Heed" (Website). Cecil has been involved in peddling his Reformed heresies since the 1980s, as well as attacking The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with baseless, and often eisegesis-driven arguments. I emailed him twice in 2006 about some of his false claims about "Mormonism," but he never responded (out of fairness, I will put it down to a busy schedule). Andrews, as with many Protestant apologists, tends not to do well against opponents who (1) are good debaters and (2) are informed about the relevant scholarship and literature. For instance, see his debate against Catholic apologist, Peter D. Williams on the Catholic dogmas of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice and transubstantiation here. I will note that, unlike Andrews, I have the ability to respect Greek exegesis and interact with, and refute the arguments of Williams (e.g., the claim that τουτο εστιν του σωμα μου proves Transubstantiation). Andrews embarrassed himself, and his dismissal of Peter's appeal to Greek grammar and exegesis is, well, absurd. Then again, Andrews in a debate I attended in Dublin argued in favour of the authenticity of 1 John 5:7 (see here showing that this text is spurious), further revealing how anti-intellectual he and other Fundamentalists truly are.
The talk was entitled, "Cults--The Religion Peddlers" (link). His definition of a cult is most revealing; he argues that a cult has an earthly head and has additional revelation to the Bible (as well as a false Christology and soteriology). Keep in mind the opening two "marks" would condemn New Testament Christianity; after all, Andrews, as a good Trinitarian, would hold to the Hypostatic Union, wherein Christ was and is 100% divine and 100% human, so in effect, Christ was a (truly) human head of the Church. Furthermore, we know that the apostles were the heads of the Church after the ascension, as evidenced by Acts 15 and the Jerusalem council, and the roles played by Peter and James (cf. Matt 16:18-19; 18:18). In addition, during the time of Christ and the time after His ascension, the only Scriptures were the Old Testament--the New Testament was only written after the time of Christ, and we know also that non-inscripturated revelation was also privileged as being on par with the authority of "the Bible" of the time (the OT), as evidenced by texts such as 1 Thess 2:13 and 2 Thess 2:15, among other texts. Even allowing Sola Scriptura to be true (which it isn't--search on "sola scriptura" to see various posts exegeting the key "proof-texts" used to support this man-made doctrine), the New Testament authors were "cultists" according to Andrews' "arguments."
The issue of LDS Christology and soteriology is too lengthy an issue to deal with, though a search of "salvation," "Christology," and related terms on this blog post will provide articles on these issues, such as "Latter-day Saints have chosen the true Biblical Jesus" and my review of the Holt/McKeever debate on LDS soteriology. Needless to say, it is Latter-day Saint Christology and soteriology that is supported by sound biblical exegesis, not Andrews' Trinitarian Christology/Reformed soteriology.
Andrews' arguments against the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, early LDS history, and related issues reveal a death of research on his behalf (e.g., his false claim that "there is no such language as reformed Egyptian" [refuted here] and his claim that there is no evidence of any the places in the Book of Mormon [see here for a summary of Nahom/Bountiful in Arabia]) and have been answered by LDS apologists and scholars for decades (e.g., the wiki from FairMormon). This only shows a lack of intellectual integrity on the behalf of Andrews, mirroring his lack of exegetical abilities. A more honest researcher would at least ensure they are informed about the responses from the other side, and meaningfully interact with them.
Andrews claims that (1) Joseph Smith "stole" the concept of baptismal regeneration from Roman Catholicism and (2) that baptismal regeneration is false. There is no evidence that Joseph had much, if any, contact with Roman Catholicism in his formative years. Furthermore, baptismal regeneration is biblical, unlike the merely symbolic view of baptism Andrews, as a Reformed Baptist, holds to. For instance, consider the following from a Calvinist who, unlike Andrews, has enough intellectual integrity to admit that Paul’s use of language in Rom 6:1-5 supports baptismal regeneration:
The explanatory γαρ in 6:5 links the verse with his previous comments about the believer’s death with Christ through water-baptism in 6:3-4. His argument appears to be that believers died to sin and should no longer live under its power (6:2). Their water-baptism proves that they participate in the death of Jesus and experience a spiritual death to the power of sin (6:3). Therefore, Paul concludes that believers have been buried with Jesus through their participation in water-baptism, a baptism that identifies them with the death of Jesus (their representative [5:12-21]) and thereby kills the power of sin in their lives, so that they would live with Jesus in the resurrection just as Jesus presently lives in the power of his physical resurrection (6:4). Believers who died to the power of sin by being baptized into Jesus’ death will certainly (αλλα και) participate in a physical resurrection just as Jesus died and resurrected, because those who died to the power of sin (just as Jesus died = τω ομοιωματι του θανατου αυτου) will participate in a future resurrection (just as Jesus has already been resurrected) (6:5). (Jarvis J. Williams, Christ Died for Our Sins: Representation and Substitution in Romans and their Jewish Martyrological Background [Eugene, Oreg.: Pickwick Publications, 2015], 178).
There were other things that Andrews discussed, such as John 19:30 and his claim that τετελεσται (“it is finished”) is biblical proof against LDS claims of the priesthood and that there is only one holder of the Melchizedek Priesthood. These arguments have been refuted soundly by LDS apologists, and I have discussed these issues in some detail, too, such as:
The LDS Priesthoods: Resource Page (e.g., this paper on the evidence for an ordained, ministerial priesthood of the New Covenant from the OT and NT)
Needless to say, Andrews' Reformed theology results in perverse view of both ecclesiology and soteriology (cf. Gal 1:6-9).
As with many critics of the LDS Church who operate in the 32 counties (e.g., Desmond Ferguson, formerly of Irish Church Missions), Andrews is grossly ignorant, not just of Mormonism, but biblical exegesis.
It is my contention (and I am always happy to defend this), is that Latter-day Saint theology is either supported by, or is neutral towards, the biblical texts in light o the historical-grammatical method of exegesis.