Now back to the issue of the Reformation that ou raised. I wish you would have asked me about this after I took my Western Religions class this summer, but I'll give it a whirl anyway. Keeping in mind that it's an established fact that I don't mind making a public fool of myself by going out on a limb. ;-) Having said that, I will think on the screen for you.
The Reformation is a documented historical fact. I think it had mainly to do with opposition to corruption in the church. Documented-historical-factual corruption. It takes no "belief" on my part to acknowledge a documented-historical-fact.
Sure it is documented. So? So it the fact the Joseph Smith started a church. And yes the reformation was due to perceived corruption in the Church, but the corruption was due to an apostasy and that was certainly believed by the reformers. And yes, if you adhere to reformed theology it certainly does take belief on your part.
The Restoration that Joseph Smith claimed, is based on "The Great Apostasy". Without the Great Apostasy, no restoration would have been needed. I've found that LDS folks can tell me about the Great Apostasy, signs that the church disappeared from the earth, but they cannot document it as historical fact.
Yes the LDS Church is based on the need for a complete restoration not just a reformation. And yes LDS can document what and when they believe the apostasy took place. I already gave you a date for that. Two books that also delve into this in great detail from and LDS angle are The Great Apostasy by Talmadge and Essentials in Ecclesiastical History by BH Roberts. LDS view the corruption of the Church as the sings of apostasy. They date it to the death of the apostles and then see the results through all the middle ages. They view the reformation as a key indication of apostasy and think the reformers did the best they could without God sending new apostles and prophets.
Moving along here, of what relevance is restoring a "primitive" church that included apostles? The Apostles were directly chosen by Christ. The Bible demonstrates that they were chosen with the mission of spreading the Gospel to far reaching places and engage in establishing churches. When the Gospel was "planted" (for lack of a better word), there was no need for additional apostles for the mission was complete. From that point on, the church was left in the hands of disciples.
The Bible nowhere indicates that the apostles were not to be replaced. And in fact it indicates they were. Act selects Mathias to replace Judas and Paul was also a late call. Some think Barnabas was a replacement apostle as well. Your view is the spin that reformed theology puts on this issue.
The Apostles of the early LDS Church were chosen directly by Joseph Smith. Now, you could make a case for Paul having been chosen via "vision" but if you use that as a case against Paul being directly chosen by Christ you need to apply that same line of defense against the calling of Joseph Smith.
LDS believe that Joseph Smith and OC were directly called as apostles by Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith later received a revelation to call 12 apostles and was told to have the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon select them. LDS believe this was all done under the direction of Jesus Christ.
The Bible prescribes the structure of the church. Do you have evidence to support that the structure of the church was ever changed?
Mormons believe the structure started to change with the lack of new apostles.