[AnthonyB]

Didn't want to interrupt Erik but now the thread seems to be clowing down, I'll put my thoughts in...

I think that the reformation had two wings, and for want of better terms I shall call them "magisterial" and "anabaptist". (The following is only a superficail discussion of a vast topic)

Magestrial reformation was lead largely by ex-priest or scholars (eg Calvin Luther Zwingle Knox). They tended to state churches, infant baptism, hierichial church government, reformed theology and were happy to use the state to enforce relgious orhtodoxy.

Anabaptist wing was more lay in orientation. They tended to non state churches, congreagational church government, believer's baptism, (anachronistically although the term is) arminian or even semi-pelaginian thelogy and believed the state should not enforce religion.

Of course they was a spectrum and not everbody fits into neatly into such category.

However it always struck me as odd that most "evanglelicals" remember and reverence magisterial protestant leaders, even though on whole range of issue we differ from them. To be brutally honest these same revered leaders quite often had the state sanction execution or at least persecution of people who largely share beliefs common with evanglelicals. Yet the leaders of the anabaptist wing fail to be known, yet alone reverenced. (with the exception of perhaps Bunyan but his stints in prison show how even mild evanglelical types were treated by magisterial reformed christians). Far fewer evanglelicals know about Menno Simmons (as an example) but it was the Mennonites that had considerable influence on the creation of the English Baptists.

It strikes as only a little less absurd for LDS to think kindly of the magisterial reformers then it does for many evanglelicals. Both Baptist/Pentecostal/Church of Christ/SDA and the LDS would have all quite happy been severally persucted by these men (and sometimes even executed) for nothing more then choosing to believe differently.