The following are excerpts from James Patrick Holding, The Mormon Defenders: How Latter-day Saint Apologists Misinterpret the Bible (2001)
The weakness of current popular literature on Mormonism lies, ironically, in the evangelistic concentration of the authors. Most such writers are concerned with clarifying and illustrating fundamental differences between Mormonism and orthodox Christianity, and tend to take their position for granted rather than defending it, so they may turn to their primary focus, which is evangelism. They have assumed that the Mormon position will be shown to be absurd and untrue by exposure, and by simple reassertion of orthodox doctrine. This approach was perhaps satisfactory in the past, but will not suffice when confronting the new and aggressive Mormon apologetic that has rendered the typical criticisms anachronistic. (p. 9)
On John 5:37:
Hopkins comments that the word “shape” is “translated from the Greek word for external or outward appearance. The rebuke would have been meaningless if the Father had no outward appearance that the Pharisees could have seen.” Hopkins is correct, but his explanation is incomplete. The Greek word for “shape” does refer to an outward appearance, but it neither indicates what this shape is, nor whether it reflects the essential nature of one taking the shape. Indeed, since the word is used with reference to a being whom the Mormons regard as a personage of spirit (“And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him . . . “ [Luke 3:22]), John 5:37 cannot contribute to the case for divine embodiment. (p. 20)
. . . we may point out that the pre-Incarnation Jesus gained no personal advantages from the incarnation . . . Acts 1:11 indicates nothing about the state of Christ between his ascent and return. Let us suppose that a person at a birthday party wears a bow tie that the host likes. He says, “You don’t need to stare at it. I will return next year wearing the same outfit.” The guest is not implying that he will wear the tie all year until the next party; nor were the angels implying that Christ’s body was a permanent, unalterable addition to his natural existence. (pp. 22, 23)
1 Cor 15:46:
This verse in context does not have any direct application to preexistence, for it is made in reference to Adam and Christ and the type of men they were. (p. 59)
One response to this argument is that baptism for the dead was not a widespread practice, and therefore cannot have been a true rite of the church. (p. 64)
LDS apologists may also argue that the apostles did not initiate people into the practice, and that knowledge of it was lost as the apostles died out. But to maintain this thesis, one must defend the idea that every person with knowledge of baptism for the dead neglected to pass on vital information before they died, even as those with knowledge of the rite were dying all around them. Did it never occur to anyone to pass on the information before dying? Did the apostles tell initiates enough to make Paul’s passing reference familiar, and did these people express no anxiety to find out more, even as they saw knowledgeable people die off, one by one, without imparting their knowledge? Did they have no concern for dead relatives who needed proxy baptism done for them? (Ibid., 78)
Mormons are often said to believe in legalism (salvation by works) and while some undoubtedly do, just as many Christians unwittingly maintain a legalistic bent, the official Mormon doctrinal view is best described as covenantal nomism, the belief that upon entering a covenant with God (which is offered by grace), one must properly respond with obedience to remain in the covenant relationship. Mormons believe indeed that one is saved by faith and through grace, but that alone will not earn a place in the celestial heaven. One may be saved by faith and by grace and achieve one of the less desirable heavens; but they must remain obedient to the covenant requirements to get to the highest heaven.
In accordance with covenantal nomism, Mormonism also follows in the footsteps of the Arminian branches of orthodox Christianity in not accepting the doctrine of eternal security. Mormons do not believe the saying, “once saved, always saved,” but affirm it is possible to fall from grace and apostasize from one’s faith. In the Mormon view, “Continued faithfulness is required in order not to fall from grace after we have been saved.” (pp. 101-2)
Baptism, like any validating behavior, is “essential to salvation” only in the sense that if you don’t want to go through with it, and there is no barrier to understanding, then it is clear that you do not possess salvation. Thought and action are expected, under the Semitic Totality paradigm, to correspond. The conversion and the baptism are regarded as one process, not because the latter is required for salvation, but because it is expected in light of salvation. (p. 113)