Words have unique meanings when used in scripture. The Lord has given us great insight into word usages in D&C Section 19: 4-12. He uses words as proper nouns which then change meanings.
Part of the question raised concerns the word "destroy" as used in Section 132. I have described the meaning of destroy or destruction in footnote 225 on page 161 of Nephi's Isaiah. It does not mean annihilate. It means to divest of government or control. In the context of Section 132 to be "destroyed" does not mean to be killed, or obliterated, but rather it means to lose your order, your government or covenant. The form of government that will endure into eternity is the family. Without a family connection, you remain separate and single, without exaltation. Therefore to be "destroyed" is to be severed from the family unit, or marriage relationship which the section of the D&C is establishing.
It is also necessary to understand that the role of the woman in the establishment of an eternal family unit is critical. It is central. Some of what is involved in understanding the relationship between the man/woman and covenant making is just not appropriate to be set out in public. Therefore I won't do it. To the extent it is appropriate, I have given a basis for someone who wants to understand in several things I have written. The closing chapters on sealing authority/power in Beloved Enos is part of what should be understood. The tenth parable in Ten Parables is also critical to understanding what and why an eternal relationship would be preserved. The chapter on Sacred Ordinances in Come, Let Us Adore Him gives some further information. I'd commend you to that information.
I also found this in Hugh Nibley's latest book, which helps with understanding, also. Particularly in light of the information contained in the tenth parable referred to above:
"Sarah, like Isis, is the ageless mother and perennial bride; with the birth of Isaac she becomes young again--'Is any thing too hard for the Lord?' (Gen. 18: 14). The woman who stands behind Osiris on the throne is Isis, sustaining him in his office with uplifted hand; it is Isis, 'fused' with Hathor as the 'king-maker,' as Jan Assmann puts it." One Eternal Round - The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, p. 156.
"Neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord," wrote Paul. (1 Cor. 11: 11.) You cannot have an eternal marriage without both. In the relationship, the woman's role in creating a king is central, for it is the woman who will establish him on his throne. In turn, it is the man who will then establish her on her throne. Her act precedes his, and his act confirms and blesses the new government or family unit as his first act as king. For king without consort is doomed to end. Together they are infinite, because in them the seed continues. They may still be mortal as the events take place, but because they continue and produce seed, they are as infinite as the gods.
The role or importance of the woman in the eternal family unit is not diminished in any respect by the confusion and sorting out being done in the later verses of Section 132. The information there is attempting to restore order to the chaos that had developed through the half-hearted attempts to comply with the new order without actually engaging in a fully public, acknowledged marital relationship involving a man and multiple wives.
As to the reference to serial marriage of "virgins" in the later verses, this was a return to the original intent. When you marry a virgin, you are getting someone who does not already have a spouse. Using innovations, like sealing a second "wife" to a man when she was already married to another, was never the intent. These verses about marrying virgins returns to the foundation of a first marriage for the woman. She was to be involved with a direct, actual marriage, not to be in some half-hearted compromise relationship where the relationship was not truly and fully a marriage for her. She was to acquire a husband and mate. She would have all the rights and the husband would owe all the obligations, as if he were married to her alone. She was "his" and therefore he was obligated to her for support, maintenance and duties as a husband. There could be no sharing. There could be no half-way measures. This was to be his wife in very deed.
Now I've taken perhaps too long to answer the question, and it may in turn raise other questions, but I've tried to bring some clarity to this rather confused and messy circumstance. It was the confusion of the early practice that brought about the need for multiple updates and clarifications which all got amalgamated into the single Section 132. Part of the revelation comes from the attempts to work around the earliest portions of the revelation, received between 1829 and 1831. The clarifications don't make as much sense when separated from the conduct that resulted in the clarifications.
There is a reason we don't have much from the church about this section. Right now the whole thing has become an embarrassment. We (the LDS Church) have become the chief antagonists of the polygamists in the west. We want to clearly draw a line between "us" and "them." The church learned its lesson by hard experience. Now the lesson learned is going to be constantly reapplied to show all the world that we have abandoned the practice. We do that by constantly denouncing the polygamists. As part of that campaign we can't really go back and give Section 132 a wholesome treatment. That would seem to contradict what we now preach and practice. Such are the results of history.