By "oh really":My what a nice piece of revisionist history. Under the threat of Blood Atonement, which in effect was a death sentence for apostasy, I'm sure most residents of Orderville considered dis-obedience with grave consequence. Blood atonement during the Mormon Reformation concerned the killing of "covenant breakers." The greatest covenant breakers were thought to be "apostates," who according to early Mormon doctrine would become sons of Perdition and for whom "there is no chance whatever for exaltation." (Brigham Young 1857) Nevertheless, Brigham Young believed that blood atonement would have at least some benefit. Young's first discussion of blood atonement in 1845 concerned a man who may have been considered an apostate in Nauvoo, Illinois (Smith 1845). On February 8, 1857, Young said, regarding apostates, that "if their blood had been spilled, it would have been better for them." (Young 1857) Young warned these apostates that although "[t]he wickedness and ignorance of the nations forbid this principle's being in full force, ...the time will come when the law of God will be in full force," (Young 1857) meaning that apostates would be subject to theocratic blood atonement. In August 1857, Heber C. Kimball echoed Young's statements about apostates, stating that "if men turn traitors to God and His servants, their blood will surely be shed, or else they will be damned, and that too according to their covenants." (Kimball 1857)
Oh?
When was the 'doctrine' changed?
On who's authority?
What is it now?