The LDS and JWs are reconstructionists. They teach that the church died and they had to rebuild it. (Contrary to Jesus’ words that hell wouldn’t prevail over the church.)
The Reformation is not called “The Reconstruction” for a reason. It was a reform movement, meaning that it was dedicated to the fixing/rehab/healing of a wayward institution.
Yet they claim Jesus as their savior. They can cite scripture to support their view. The bible does not say believe in Christ conditionally, does it? Where does it say that one must have correct theology to believe in Chirst?
The Orthodox Church hasn't changed. Our liturgy hasn't changed. Our doctrine hasn't changed. So, if the Reformers wanted to be in the Church as it was back then, why did't they become Orthodox if not for their claim that the Church was somehow in "apostasy" from the beginning? How is that different from the so-called "reconstructionists?"
Aren't the Reformers the ones who say all we need is to believe Jesus is our God and Savior? How is that different from LDS and JW? Whose idea is to throw in the correct theology if not man's? If belief was enough we wouldn't be having theological discussions here.
No, the Reformed INVENTED their own "church" and theology and claim it to be the "continuation" of the the original.