Yes, the essay is posted on LDS.ORG under the heading of topics. However the whole point is that posting flawed human history on a church website does not mean that what it claims is true, or that the sources are credible. It is merely an essay by so called, nameless, Church scholars who are expressing opinions based on how they interpret history. Church produced products do not all come with the imprimatur of the mind and will of God, unless canonized and confirmed by the Holy Spirit to be such. Elder Packer on occasion has taken the Church historian's office to task, for their weakness in trying to elevate flesh reliance to the level of revelation.
For example for years the Church produced Seminary and Institute manuals referred to the Lord of the Vineyard in Zenos’ Allegory as being Jesus Christ and the servant a prophet. From my very first spirit directed reading of that powerful allegory, I always felt the Lord of the Vineyard was actually God the Father and the servant Jesus Christ. My wife and I would discuss it often and she was always hesitant to have me express my view since the “Church produced” manuals taught otherwise. Thankfully, in 2003 Elder Holland clarified the issue with a sweet talk entitled the Grandeur of God, in which he teaches that the Lord is indeed the Father. Since that talk, we have noted that the manuals have adjusted that teaching. Here is Elder Holland’s Talk:
It is a weakness of Mormon culture to want to believe that everything a prophet or apostle claims, or anything the Church publishes, is absolute truth, but while that remains a common belief, it has really never been the doctrine. Prophets, apostles, etc are humans, and are subject to opinions and errors. The only time they are infallible in their declarations is if they are speaking the word of God as directed by His spirit and confirmed to the hearer by the Holy Ghost. Elder Christofferson gave a great talk about that in April Conference 2012, with regard to Brigham Young preaching a fiery sermon in the morning only to change the entire thing in the afternoon, admitting that he had been speaking as a man earlier. Here is that talk.
The whole Salamander letter fiasco illustrates the point. Many in the church including apostles, had accepted or assumed as authentic, items of history verified by the experts of the day, and had published them, or made commentaries about them, trying to explain them or justify them, only to discover in later years they were, not withstanding the opinions of experts, complete forgeries. Elder Oaks, in a CES Symposium talk, (the same talk in which he tries to explain a possible interpretation of the then still credible Salamander Letter), gives some great counsel on how to take in and understand church history, the bottom line of his remarks was to take it all with a grain of salt and rely in the end ONLY upon revelation. Here is an alleged copy of that talk and also a later talk he gave with regard to the whole issue. Both are instructive to the current history based and flesh reliant claims about plural marriage and Joseph Smith:
Hope this helps..... thanks for asking!