On the "4Momon" Website (same page that hosts Lee Baker's materials), there is a page entitled, "Do Mormon Temples Restore Biblical Christianity?” Of course, there is the standard proof-texting of Eph 2:8-9 to support sola fide (discussed and refuted here, among other places on this blog). What did grab me, however, was some of the differences between the "Historical Jewish Temple" and modern Latter-day Saint temples, which show that the author of the piece is utterly clueless. For instance, they argue that, as there were "No Baptisms for the Dead" and other things in the Old Testament-era temples, LDS temples are to be rejected. Firstly, it should be noted that one is comparing apples and oranges--the Old Testament temples were under the Law of Moses while LDS temples are not. That is why, for instance, there are no animal sacrifices going in in the latter on an iterative basis and so forth.
Furthermore, LDS Scripture itself makes clear that posthumous salvation (of which baptisms for the dead are a part) could only start to take place after the resurrection of Jesus, as prior to that, there was a gulf between those in "spirit prison" and "paradise,” and it was only after the resurrection that those in paradise could move into the spirit prison to preach to the dead, and it was only during his three days in the realm of the dead that Christ instituted preach to the dead (see D&C 138:18-37). Such ignorant comments from the author is basically par for the course for the article.
On baptism for the dead and 1 Cor 15:29, do note the following comment from a non-LDS scholar:
It cannot be denied that Paul is here speaking of a vicarious baptism: one is baptised for the dead to ensure for them a share in the effect of baptism, and this must relate to a post-mortal life. It is also clear that Paul himself refers to this baptismal practice, and without distancing himself from it (This is the embarrassing perception which is the reason for some (comparatively few) interpreters making an imaginative attempt to ignore that this relates to a vicarious baptism).
Søren Agersnap, Baptism and the New Life: A Study of Romans 6:1-14 (Langelandsgade, Denmark: Aarhus University Press, 1999), 175-76.
We do find this comment which informs us of some of the (very faulty) theological presuppositions (and lack of exegetical abilities) of the author:
Thus, Jesus Christ has become our one and only High Priest (Hebrews 7:23-24) and Prophet (Hebrews 1:1-2; Luke 16:16).
Firstly, for the New Testament evidence for an ordained, ministerial priesthood, see this paper, for instance. Heb 7:23-24 is not problematic to LDS theology when exegeted correctly (e.g., the meaning of απαραβατος in v. 24). Furthermore, they are simply abusing Heb 1:1-2 and Luke 16:16 as they do not support the common Protestant interpretation they are attempting to read into these passages (i.e., sola scriptura) (for a full discussion of these two texts, see my response to "God Loves Mormons" on this issue: Yes, We Need Modern Prophets: Responding to Godlovesmormons)
For a fuller discussion of the temple, including refutations of many of the common criticisms against LDS temple theology (including those raised in this travesty of a piece), see, for example:
Matthew B. Brown, The Israelite Temple and the Early Christians
Instead of being a meaningful article, just like Lee Baker's "Challenging Questions," this article is a joke piece. Only gullible Evangelical Protestants will think the "arguments" are meaningful, while informed individuals will see the eisegesis-driven nonsense they are trying to present.