POLYGAMY: Nauvoo Expositor & Interview with William Law, March 30, 1887

[Col. Flagg]

Law claims that Joseph and Hyrum had prepared POISON to kill him. Then he says Emma would occasional meet him out on the street to complain about women that Joseph would have in the house, which contradicts every verifiable statement that Emma(and Joseph) ever made on the subject.

Then supposedly Joseph and Hyrum got 100 Indians to run into town and have 20 of them go to his house?

He goes on to say that Joseph Smith SR is an Old Tramp, that he always gave the same old boring blessings.

Then, Joseph supposedly talked about how much these girls pleased him. Although he was soo open about this stuff, he only mentioned it to William Law?

Then this guy went and started his own church with himself as President.

On top of that, William Law approached Bennett about this abomination of Plural Marriage and Bennett admitted that Joseph never actually taught him anything about plural marriage or spiritual wifery. After that, William Law(the guy who hates polygamy) went to Joseph Smith(the guy who apparently practices polygamy and wants to practice with William Law's wife) and pleads with Joseph not to go too hard on Bennet(The other guy who practices polygamy who said he learned from Joseph, then said he didn't, then said he did again)

...
I mean, aside from some extraordinary claims and obvious emnity towards the entire Smith Family, I just really don't believe him over every single public statement made by Hyrum, Joseph, William Smith, and Emma.

add that to this:

Goes both ways:

“Those who choose to be biased against Joseph Smith, based on their beliefs about him, will never be able to open-mindedly consider...” yada yada yada.

Thing is, I was always a Joseph polygamist believer. I was never was exposed to the argument against until recently, last couple of years. Not saying my mind is made up, but Brigham’s doctoring of history, public denials by Joseph, no children with other women, Cochranites, questionable origins of 132 etc, has thrown a wrench into my previously held position, which was Joseph = polygamist.

I've done my research, I'm no longer convinced that Joseph Smith taught or practiced polygamy.

I've gone just the opposite direction... I've always been convinced that there was no way JS was a polygamist and researched everything I could to verify and prove it. Now I'm on the fence as there is plenty of evidence of his escapades involving women, marrying young teenage girls, sending men off on missions and then propositioning their wives, etc. The church even acknowledges this in their essays on polygamy. The bigger problem I have is the treasure seeking/money-digging (defrauding people out of their money using so-called 'seer stones' to locate buried treasure), burying his head in a hat with the same stone inside it that he used to con people out of their money for buried treasure to 'translate' the gold plates (which weren't even present during the process), rendering a fraudulent translation of hoaxed plates (Kinderhook plates), Egyptologists all stating that the papyri used to 'translate' the Book of Abraham having nothing to do at all with Abraham and are simple funerary texts, the counterfeiting operation he and Oliver Cowdery were involved in with the Kirtland anti-bank bank that resulted in a conviction and $1,000 fine (a LOT of money at that time), the illegal 'Nauvoo Legion', joining the Masonic Lodge and becoming a 33rd degree Mason 6 weeks before he instituted the temple endowment (which was a blatant rip-off of Masonic rites/rituals), etc., etc., etc. Some of that is even revealed in church essays. That is what is very difficult to reconcile and accept if you're a TBM and it doesn't exactly give you warm fuzzies inside with your testimony.

[Chip]

Law claims that Joseph and Hyrum had prepared POISON to kill him. Then he says Emma would occasional meet him out on the street to complain about women that Joseph would have in the house, which contradicts every verifiable statement that Emma(and Joseph) ever made on the subject.

Then supposedly Joseph and Hyrum got 100 Indians to run into town and have 20 of them go to his house?

He goes on to say that Joseph Smith SR is an Old Tramp, that he always gave the same old boring blessings.

Then, Joseph supposedly talked about how much these girls pleased him. Although he was soo open about this stuff, he only mentioned it to William Law?

Then this guy went and started his own church with himself as President.

On top of that, William Law approached Bennett about this abomination of Plural Marriage and Bennett admitted that Joseph never actually taught him anything about plural marriage or spiritual wifery. After that, William Law(the guy who hates polygamy) went to Joseph Smith(the guy who apparently practices polygamy and wants to practice with William Law's wife) and pleads with Joseph not to go too hard on Bennet(The other guy who practices polygamy who said he learned from Joseph, then said he didn't, then said he did again)

...
I mean, aside from some extraordinary claims and obvious emnity towards the entire Smith Family, I just really don't believe him over every single public statement made by Hyrum, Joseph, William Smith, and Emma.

add that to this:

Goes both ways:

“Those who choose to be biased against Joseph Smith, based on their beliefs about him, will never be able to open-mindedly consider...” yada yada yada.

Thing is, I was always a Joseph polygamist believer. I was never was exposed to the argument against until recently, last couple of years. Not saying my mind is made up, but Brigham’s doctoring of history, public denials by Joseph, no children with other women, Cochranites, questionable origins of 132 etc, has thrown a wrench into my previously held position, which was Joseph = polygamist.

I've done my research, I'm no longer convinced that Joseph Smith taught or practiced polygamy.

So, that leaves you in opposition to the church, which claims Joseph DID teach and practice polygamy. The church, though, seems to have made these acknowledgments based on what its legal counsel advised, while pretending that it and its history are all kosher. Certainly, something is screwed up and the church isn't interested in genuine resolution, yet. I figure God's moving forward and everyone and every institution is given their agency to choose what they will do, with consequence often being delayed, but unavoidable, in the end.

[iWriteStuff]

I think it's possible that Joseph went off the rails there toward the end of his life - the things he was teaching & how he was teaching them - how he treated people even - how he viewed the "neighbors" (as enemies) - he was like a rough stone rolling that picked up so much speed rolling down the mountain that he pulverized himself. It seems to me.

Here's a thought that has occurred to me before. Consider the words of Wilford Woodruff:

"The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty."

Is it possible maybe that's what happened with Joseph Smith? To read "Rough Stone Rolling", it seems the events that set in motion the circumstances leading to Joseph's death had their start with his teaching/practicing polygamy. Pretty much any other trouble he ran into, the Lord rescued him from eventually. In this case, not so. Did God "remove him out of his place"?

Apologies in advance to my TBM brethren. This question has stuck in my mind ever since finishing that book. How to interpret polygamy in the context of the restoration of the gospel and eventual death of Joseph Smith....

[Zathura]

The church, though, seems to have made these acknowledgments based on what its legal counsel advised, while pretending that it and its history are all kosher. Certainly, something is screwed up and the church isn't interested in genuine resolution, yet. I figure God's moving forward and everyone and every institution is given their agency to choose what they will do, with consequence often being delayed, but unavoidable, in the end.

Precisely. I don't consider myself "In opposition of the church", but I don't care to argue if someone says I am.

Clearly history has been somewhat doctored. The story I'm told is not what happened in many cases. I believe that gives me the right to look into what was doctored, why it was doctored, and come to my own conclusion.

I don't believe Joseph Smith practiced and preached what Brigham Young did. I believe the polygamy that was practiced was an abomination according to the scriptures that I believe to be true.

[Zathura]

"The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty."

Is it possible maybe that's what happened with Joseph Smith? To read "Rough Stone Rolling", it seems the events that set in motion the circumstances leading to Joseph's death had their start with his teaching/practicing polygamy. Pretty much any other trouble he ran into, the Lord rescued him from eventually. In this case, not so. Did God "remove him out of his place"?

Yes, possibly. If I am to believe that Joseph engaged in "Lying for the Lord" for all those years. I don't believe that's the case, but I certainly think it's possible and accept that it may have been that way.

[iWriteStuff]

"The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty."

Is it possible maybe that's what happened with Joseph Smith? To read "Rough Stone Rolling", it seems the events that set in motion the circumstances leading to Joseph's death had their start with his teaching/practicing polygamy. Pretty much any other trouble he ran into, the Lord rescued him from eventually. In this case, not so. Did God "remove him out of his place"?

Yes, possibly. If I am to believe that Joseph engaged in "Lying for the Lord" for all those years. I don't believe that's the case, but I certainly think it's possible and accept that it may have been that way.

I'd like to clarify I'm not saying it was that way. But if the principle is that the Lord will remove any man who leads the church astray, you're left with only a few premises:

A) Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and his death was a martyrdom. He was innocent of any wrong doing and the doctrine of polygamy is an eternal principle.
B) Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and eternal sealings to multiple spouses is true, but he never practiced polygamy the way Brigham et al did later on.
C) Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and all teachings about polygamy attributed to him were fabrications by other parties.
D) Joseph Smith was a true prophet, but polygamy was not a true principle and the Lord removed him.

There are probably variations on that theme, but they sound a lot more like William Law's version of things.

[ajax]

Wait, so God removes Joseph out of his place because of his teaching/practicing polygamy only to allow Brigham and the boys to ramp it up 10 fold?

[Arenera]

"The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty."

Is it possible maybe that's what happened with Joseph Smith? To read "Rough Stone Rolling", it seems the events that set in motion the circumstances leading to Joseph's death had their start with his teaching/practicing polygamy. Pretty much any other trouble he ran into, the Lord rescued him from eventually. In this case, not so. Did God "remove him out of his place"?

Yes, possibly. If I am to believe that Joseph engaged in "Lying for the Lord" for all those years. I don't believe that's the case, but I certainly think it's possible and accept that it may have been that way.

I'd like to clarify I'm not saying it was that way. But if the principle is that the Lord will remove any man who leads the church astray, you're left with only a few premises:

A) Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and his death was a martyrdom. He was innocent of any wrong doing and the doctrine of polygamy is an eternal principle.
B) Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and eternal sealings to multiple spouses is true, but he never practiced polygamy the way Brigham et al did later on.
C) Joseph Smith was a true prophet, but polygamy was not a true principle and the Lord removed him.
D) Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and all teachings about polygamy attributed to him were fabrications by other parties.

There are probably variations on that theme, but they sound a lot more like William Law's version of things.

Brigham Young was Prophet for 30 years, so that shows that God commanded polygamy.

[ajax]

Is it possible maybe that's what happened with Joseph Smith? To read "Rough Stone Rolling", it seems the events that set in motion the circumstances leading to Joseph's death had their start with his teaching/practicing polygamy. Pretty much any other trouble he ran into, the Lord rescued him from eventually. In this case, not so. Did God "remove him out of his place"?

Yes, possibly. If I am to believe that Joseph engaged in "Lying for the Lord" for all those years. I don't believe that's the case, but I certainly think it's possible and accept that it may have been that way.

I'd like to clarify I'm not saying it was that way. But if the principle is that the Lord will remove any man who leads the church astray, you're left with only a few premises:

A) Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and his death was a martyrdom. He was innocent of any wrong doing and the doctrine of polygamy is an eternal principle.
B) Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and eternal sealings to multiple spouses is true, but he never practiced polygamy the way Brigham et al did later on.
C) Joseph Smith was a true prophet, but polygamy was not a true principle and the Lord removed him.
D) Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and all teachings about polygamy attributed to him were fabrications by other parties.

There are probably variations on that theme, but they sound a lot more like William Law's version of things.

Brigham Young was Prophet for 30 years, so that shows that God commanded polygamy.

Or, WW's statement is completely erroneous.

[Zathura]

Wait, so God removes Joseph out of his place because of his teaching/practicing polygamy only to allow Brigham and the boys to ramp it up 10 fold?

Good point.

However, I don't think God is going to force his people to do what's right. Since Joseph was accountable for the church he took the fall and was removed from his place, leaving the rest to dwindle in unbelief?

Again, this isn't what I think happened, but If it did, this explanation makes sense to me.

[Zathura]

Yes, possibly. If I am to believe that Joseph engaged in "Lying for the Lord" for all those years. I don't believe that's the case, but I certainly think it's possible and accept that it may have been that way.

I'd like to clarify I'm not saying it was that way. But if the principle is that the Lord will remove any man who leads the church astray, you're left with only a few premises:

A) Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and his death was a martyrdom. He was innocent of any wrong doing and the doctrine of polygamy is an eternal principle.
B) Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and eternal sealings to multiple spouses is true, but he never practiced polygamy the way Brigham et al did later on.
C) Joseph Smith was a true prophet, but polygamy was not a true principle and the Lord removed him.
D) Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and all teachings about polygamy attributed to him were fabrications by other parties.

There are probably variations on that theme, but they sound a lot more like William Law's version of things.

Brigham Young was Prophet for 30 years, so that shows that God commanded polygamy.

Or, WW's statement is completely erroneous.

^

[iWriteStuff]

Wait, so God removes Joseph out of his place because of his teaching/practicing polygamy only to allow Brigham and the boys to ramp it up 10 fold?

How many of the successors were allowed to have temples that weren't confiscated? And yet after polygamy was taken out, all our temples were returned.

Just playing Devil's Advocate, mind you. I'm still mostly in Category "A".

[iWriteStuff]

Yes, possibly. If I am to believe that Joseph engaged in "Lying for the Lord" for all those years. I don't believe that's the case, but I certainly think it's possible and accept that it may have been that way.

I'd like to clarify I'm not saying it was that way. But if the principle is that the Lord will remove any man who leads the church astray, you're left with only a few premises:

A) Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and his death was a martyrdom. He was innocent of any wrong doing and the doctrine of polygamy is an eternal principle.
B) Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and eternal sealings to multiple spouses is true, but he never practiced polygamy the way Brigham et al did later on.
C) Joseph Smith was a true prophet, but polygamy was not a true principle and the Lord removed him.
D) Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and all teachings about polygamy attributed to him were fabrications by other parties.

There are probably variations on that theme, but they sound a lot more like William Law's version of things.

Brigham Young was Prophet for 30 years, so that shows that God commanded polygamy.

Or, WW's statement is completely erroneous.

So you're saying WW was completely off base? And because no president ever will attempt to lead the church astray, the Lord will never have to remove any of them? Or is it more that Joseph never did lead the church astray with polygamy because God wouldn't have allowed that?

[Zathura]

I'd like to clarify I'm not saying it was that way. But if the principle is that the Lord will remove any man who leads the church astray, you're left with only a few premises:

A) Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and his death was a martyrdom. He was innocent of any wrong doing and the doctrine of polygamy is an eternal principle.
B) Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and eternal sealings to multiple spouses is true, but he never practiced polygamy the way Brigham et al did later on.
C) Joseph Smith was a true prophet, but polygamy was not a true principle and the Lord removed him.
D) Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and all teachings about polygamy attributed to him were fabrications by other parties.

There are probably variations on that theme, but they sound a lot more like William Law's version of things.

Brigham Young was Prophet for 30 years, so that shows that God commanded polygamy.

Or, WW's statement is completely erroneous.

So you're saying WW was completely off base? And because no president ever will attempt to lead the church astray, the Lord will never have to remove any of them? Or is it more that Joseph never did lead the church astray with polygamy because God wouldn't have allowed that?

I think the idea is just that God wouldn't remove them out of their place in the event that they(Joseph, Brigham, anyone) misguided the church.

[iWriteStuff]

Brigham Young was Prophet for 30 years, so that shows that God commanded polygamy.

Or, WW's statement is completely erroneous.

So you're saying WW was completely off base? And because no president ever will attempt to lead the church astray, the Lord will never have to remove any of them? Or is it more that Joseph never did lead the church astray with polygamy because God wouldn't have allowed that?

I think the idea is just that God wouldn't remove them out of their place in the event that they(Joseph, Brigham, anyone) misguided the church.

So using different words, God will allow any president to lead the church astray?

It would seem that is the central question, since the WW quotation is canonized, as is D&C 132. Then again, "I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good" (D&C 56:4).

[John Tavner]

Or, WW's statement is completely erroneous.

So you're saying WW was completely off base? And because no president ever will attempt to lead the church astray, the Lord will never have to remove any of them? Or is it more that Joseph never did lead the church astray with polygamy because God wouldn't have allowed that?

I think the idea is just that God wouldn't remove them out of their place in the event that they(Joseph, Brigham, anyone) misguided the church.

So using different words, God will allow any president to lead the church astray?

Absolutely, the scriptures are replete with examples of this. I don't see how we can claim to be different, the only promise made was that the authority to use the priesthood would never be taken off the earth again, not that the church would never be wrong especially if the people want wickedness.

[Zathura]

Or, WW's statement is completely erroneous.

So you're saying WW was completely off base? And because no president ever will attempt to lead the church astray, the Lord will never have to remove any of them? Or is it more that Joseph never did lead the church astray with polygamy because God wouldn't have allowed that?

I think the idea is just that God wouldn't remove them out of their place in the event that they(Joseph, Brigham, anyone) misguided the church.

So using different words, God will allow any president to lead the church astray?

Yes.

[Arenera]

Or, WW's statement is completely erroneous.

So you're saying WW was completely off base? And because no president ever will attempt to lead the church astray, the Lord will never have to remove any of them? Or is it more that Joseph never did lead the church astray with polygamy because God wouldn't have allowed that?

I think the idea is just that God wouldn't remove them out of their place in the event that they(Joseph, Brigham, anyone) misguided the church.

So using different words, God will allow any president to lead the church astray?

No, but if the Apostles are all killed, watch out.

[ajax]

I'd like to clarify I'm not saying it was that way. But if the principle is that the Lord will remove any man who leads the church astray, you're left with only a few premises:

A) Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and his death was a martyrdom. He was innocent of any wrong doing and the doctrine of polygamy is an eternal principle.
B) Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and eternal sealings to multiple spouses is true, but he never practiced polygamy the way Brigham et al did later on.
C) Joseph Smith was a true prophet, but polygamy was not a true principle and the Lord removed him.
D) Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and all teachings about polygamy attributed to him were fabrications by other parties.

There are probably variations on that theme, but they sound a lot more like William Law's version of things.

Brigham Young was Prophet for 30 years, so that shows that God commanded polygamy.

Or, WW's statement is completely erroneous.

So you're saying WW was completely off base? And because no president ever will attempt to lead the church astray, the Lord will never have to remove any of them? Or is it more that Joseph never did lead the church astray with polygamy because God wouldn't have allowed that?

It's a completely made up "doctrine" in order to cover his arse with the saints. Believing in such, makes the man and the office diety. Any man can lead you astray at any time. JS warned the saints against this thinking via Eze 14. Eze 34 also speaks of shepherds scattering the flock. And we are warned many times not to trust in man or arm of the flesh. It makes persons atrophy spiritually.

[iWriteStuff]

Brigham Young was Prophet for 30 years, so that shows that God commanded polygamy.

Or, WW's statement is completely erroneous.

So you're saying WW was completely off base? And because no president ever will attempt to lead the church astray, the Lord will never have to remove any of them? Or is it more that Joseph never did lead the church astray with polygamy because God wouldn't have allowed that?

It's a completely made up "doctrine" in order to cover his arse with the saints.

What about "I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good" (D&C 56:4)? Could polygamy have been a commandment at one time and revoked at another? The Lord laid the groundwork for that pattern back in 1831. Maybe the Lord commanded through Joseph, and revoked through WW.

[John Tavner]

Or, WW's statement is completely erroneous.

So you're saying WW was completely off base? And because no president ever will attempt to lead the church astray, the Lord will never have to remove any of them? Or is it more that Joseph never did lead the church astray with polygamy because God wouldn't have allowed that?

I think the idea is just that God wouldn't remove them out of their place in the event that they(Joseph, Brigham, anyone) misguided the church.

So using different words, God will allow any president to lead the church astray?

Put another way, we are an extremely wicked people, I include myself in that. We have become so inundated with babylon that we can't even define ourselves as peculiar people anymore, which is how the Lord designates His people. We seek after riches more than we seek Him, we seek after entertainment more than we seek Him, we seek after our own vain-glory rather than giving it to Him. The majority of our approach in church is more about us than it is about Christ. We talk very little of sacrificing for the Lord i.e. giving up who we are to truly take upon the Lord's name. I'm not casting stones, merely stating facts; If we don't repent, we will suffer. There is no doubt in my mind about this. Half of us think we can earn our way into heaven through fulfilling certain ordinances. The ordinances only point towards Him. If we don't become or at least have a change in heart seeking Him with all our Hearts and Loving the Lord God with all our heart, might, mind and strength, then we fail. In fact half of our problem is that we are taught to love our neighbor more than God. If we don't love God we won't know how to love our neighbor, because loving our neighbor is doing as God would and helping them in their process to gain eternal life. Like I said, I'm guilty of this myself, but I'm trying to repent and change my ways.

[John Tavner]

Or, WW's statement is completely erroneous.

So you're saying WW was completely off base? And because no president ever will attempt to lead the church astray, the Lord will never have to remove any of them? Or is it more that Joseph never did lead the church astray with polygamy because God wouldn't have allowed that?

It's a completely made up "doctrine" in order to cover his arse with the saints.

What about "I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good" (D&C 56:4)? Could polygamy have been a commandment at one time and revoked at another? The Lord laid the groundwork for that pattern back in 1831. Maybe the Lord commanded through Joseph, and revoked through WW.

Because the people weren't living the law? According to the BoM by which we are to abide its precepts because it will get us closer to God than any other book, if God gives a commandment, he prepares the way so that it might be fulfilled. So apparently he all of a sudden states, through vision that If you don't stop this commandment that I gave then you will be destroyed? It doesn't follow or make sense.
Edit: additionally as far as I'm aware, it wasn't a I the Lord God revoke this, it was a "if yhou don't stop this you will be destroyed." It's one thing for the Lord to command to revoke and if they ignore it they will be destroyed, but that vision certainly wasn't shared that way.

[iWriteStuff]

So you're saying WW was completely off base? And because no president ever will attempt to lead the church astray, the Lord will never have to remove any of them? Or is it more that Joseph never did lead the church astray with polygamy because God wouldn't have allowed that?

It's a completely made up "doctrine" in order to cover his arse with the saints.

What about "I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good" (D&C 56:4)? Could polygamy have been a commandment at one time and revoked at another? The Lord laid the groundwork for that pattern back in 1831. Maybe the Lord commanded through Joseph, and revoked through WW.

Because the people weren't living the law? According to the BoM by which we are to abide its precepts because it will get us closer to God than any other book, if God gives a commandment, he prepares the way so that it might be fulfilled. So apparently he all of a sudden states, through vision that If you don't stop this commandment that I gave then you will be destroyed? It doesn't follow or make sense.
Edit: additionally as far as I'm aware, it wasn't a I the Lord God revoke this, it was a "if yhou don't stop this you will be destroyed." It's one thing for the Lord to command to revoke and if they ignore it they will be destroyed, but that vision certainly wasn't shared that way.

Correct, the words "I revoke" are not in the Manifesto. But in effect and in practice, that is what occurred. The Lord showed WW ("revelation", he said) what would happen if they didn't stop practicing polygamy.

[ajax]

Or, WW's statement is completely erroneous.

So you're saying WW was completely off base? And because no president ever will attempt to lead the church astray, the Lord will never have to remove any of them? Or is it more that Joseph never did lead the church astray with polygamy because God wouldn't have allowed that?

It's a completely made up "doctrine" in order to cover his arse with the saints.

What about "I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good" (D&C 56:4)? Could polygamy have been a commandment at one time and revoked at another? The Lord laid the groundwork for that pattern back in 1831. Maybe the Lord commanded through Joseph, and revoked through WW.

Wait, I thought God was removing JS because he taught it; now he was commanded it?

When? When did he teach it and present it to the saints as such?

I don't think God commands abominations. And since Jesus is the standard, God manifest among us, whatever deviates from that is nothing more than men using God's name to justify bad behaviour.

[John Tavner]

It's a completely made up "doctrine" in order to cover his arse with the saints.

What about "I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good" (D&C 56:4)? Could polygamy have been a commandment at one time and revoked at another? The Lord laid the groundwork for that pattern back in 1831. Maybe the Lord commanded through Joseph, and revoked through WW.

Because the people weren't living the law? According to the BoM by which we are to abide its precepts because it will get us closer to God than any other book, if God gives a commandment, he prepares the way so that it might be fulfilled. So apparently he all of a sudden states, through vision that If you don't stop this commandment that I gave then you will be destroyed? It doesn't follow or make sense.
Edit: additionally as far as I'm aware, it wasn't a I the Lord God revoke this, it was a "if yhou don't stop this you will be destroyed." It's one thing for the Lord to command to revoke and if they ignore it they will be destroyed, but that vision certainly wasn't shared that way.

Correct, the words "I revoke" are not in the Manifesto. But in effect and in practice, that is what occurred. The Lord showed WW ("revelation", he said) what would happen if they didn't stop practicing polygamy.

God works plainly. He straight up tells people if they are doing wrong or if they should stop, he doesn't show a vision to make the implication that someone should stop. If I had a vision I would ask God - Hey, I had this vision, does that mean you are revoking that commandment? I guarantee you God will say Yes. Revoke it. That seems like it would be something important to include in a revelation. The way it is written makes it seem to me, again, that it was never a commandment at the very least in the way it was being implemented at the time. Why you would ask? I'll tell you why Satan can also send dreams and visions and they can be false. A lesson was learned by a young prophet, and it cost him his life. The story in the old testament about prophets, one received revelation directly from the Lord not to eat or drink till he got into his own country. He didn't follow through because the young prophet was told by another prophet who was told by an angel to tempt him, he listened to the older prophet, ate and drank and was killed. This teaches us to get revelation from God himself - especially when a previous commandment is received from God Himself.