Among the first sources I looked to for answers were official Church sources...I couldn’t find them.

Notice that FairMormon says that they find no mention of “11 other men’s wives” on lds.org and leaves it at that. There is nothing on lds.org, mormon.org, or anywhere in official sources about “polyandry” either.

In fact, the first result you get when you search for “polyandry” on LDS.org is an article about laundry tips:

If the Church had an official response to polyandry and Joseph’s 11 polyandrous marriages, you’d definitely hear about it from FairMormon.

This is an admission by FairMormon that the Church is not transparent to their members about the polyandrous (wives with multiple husbands) marriages of Joseph Smith.

I find it very disingenuous the way FairMormon responded above to the polyandry. FairMormon states there is no mention of “11 other men’s wives” while not offering to their readers that there are no mentions of “polyandry” by the Church anywhere either.

FairMormon is incorrect with their “there are a number of mentions of plural marriages” claim. Notice that FairMormon does not offer sources to support their claims of open transparency about plural marriage like they do with the Book of Mormon translation and the Book of Abraham.

Perhaps the real reason why FairMormon does not offer sources on polygamy? FairMormon learned their lesson in March 2012 when the president of FairMormon, Scott Gordon, pulled the same botched stunt on polygamy like he did with the rock in the hat translation sources:

Source @ 2:12 mark

Out of the 7 sources given by FairMormon in this presentation as proof that the Church is being transparent and honest to members about Joseph Smith’s polygamy, only one of the sources – Ensign December 1978, p. 42 – checks out. FairMormon is dishonest in claiming that there are “a number of [official] mentions of plural marriages” of Joseph Smith.

In any event, FairMormon’s ineffective attempt to show that the Church has been transparent is an implicit acknowledgment by FairMormon that the Church should be transparent. Clearly it should, and clearly it hasn’t.

“This lets them ignore all evidence contrary to their position.”

What evidence? FairMormon’s evidence of the Church being transparent of the rock in the hat consists of two three (including the Church's brand new essay) single sources given in 40+ years. FairMormon provides no sources for polygamy/polyandry. And the best FairMormon can do with the Book of Abraham are obscure articles from between 1968 and 1988, which only obfuscate the problems of the Book of Abraham further.

FairMormon then points to the same sources contained in the Book of Mormon Translation section, which I go over individually one by one. In that section, I illustrate how out of the 8 sources FairMormon gives, only 6 are official sources. Out of those 6 official sources that FairMormon gives, only 2 clearly state the rock in the hat method. None of the sources are from General Conference talks or lesson manuals. Two thirds of the official sources FairMormon give as “proof” of the Church’s honesty and transparency to their members about how the Book of Mormon was really translated are not even official, clear, or good sources.

In the 40 year time frame of those given sources, only two of the sources (1977 and 1993 Ensigns) quote the one sentence from David Whitmer that “Joseph Smith would put the seer stone in a hat and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light.” January 2014 Note: The Church just released a brand new Book of Mormon Translation essay.

This one quote creates more questions than answers. Questions such as:

If the Church was and is truly interested in being transparent to members and investigators in how the Book of Mormon was actually translated, they would not resort to just leaving members and investigators hanging to hunt down extremely obscure sources in an archive spanning 40+ years only to end up with the only clear sources being David Whitmer’s one sentence quote in a 1977 and 1993 Ensign article over a time frame of 40 years’ worth of General Conference talks, speeches, lessons, and Ensign articles. January 2014 Note: The Church just released a brand new Book of Mormon Translation essay.

If the Church was really truly interested in being honest and transparent to their members and investigators about how the Book of Mormon was really translated, it would not be displaying – still in 2014 – the following paintings that millions of members and investigators pass through and view annually:

In doing an internal lds.org search for “Book of Abraham,” I could not locate this March 1976 Ensign article until page 5 of my search results. If this is the Church’s and FairMormon’s standard for transparency to the members? I’m unimpressed.

What’s the first thing that I read when I open this article? A disclaimer:

So, the very first thing on this source that FairMormon claims is evidence that the Church is transparent to its members is a disclaimer that it’s not official.

In reading the article, it’s filled with nonsense such as “The facsimiles confirm the book of Abraham and place before our eyes a present and tangible tie with the patriarch himself.” Actually, it doesn’t. Even FairMormon won’t stand behind this statement. Not only do the facsimiles not confirm the Book of Abraham, they’re tangible objects that have nothing to do with the patriarch himself or anything Joseph Smith claimed them to be as Egyptologists point out that Joseph’s reconstruction and “translations” of the facsimiles are complete and utter nonsense.

When I search for “Book of Abraham” in the internal search on lds.org, this and the other 2 articles are nowhere to be found. I then click on “All results from Top Results on ‘book of abraham’” and I do not see this article until close to the 9th spot on page 1 of the expanded results. This is the Church’s new search engine. I recall looking for the same article months ago and it was not even on the first page.

Like the March 1976 article, there is a disclaimer in the header of the article which states that the statements in this article are not official statements of Church policy.

Here is a rebuttal to both the March 1976 and July 1988 Ensign articles.

You cannot find this on lds.org or on any official Church website. In fact, you have to hunt it down on the internet. Once again, Google delivers where the Church does not. FairMormon states: “The following is contained in the online archive of the Improvement Era." FairMormon doesn’t tell the reader that this “online archive” is a non-LDS website archive.org that you have to do a Google search to locate. In other words, it’s archived and hidden off the official LDS websites and servers. A member or investigator in 2014 has no way of knowing about this archived article written 45 years ago unless they’re specifically aware of this document, its title, and what to search for. I have never heard of this article as a believing member and neither have several LDS friends I’ve asked (age range: 16–57).

Notice that FairMormon links to the March 1976 and July 1988 Ensign articles but not to the August 1968 Improvement Era in their source reference.

FairMormon points to the August 1968 Improvement Era as yet further proof of the Church’s transparency while ironically neglecting to note that there is no way for a member or investigator to find this unless they’re very specifically told about it, its title, and its publication date.

It is beyond absurd that we’re supposed to take FairMormon seriously that these obscure articles published 20-45 years ago, which mostly contain a paragraph here or a sentence there, are proof that the LDS Church is transparent to their members and investigators in 2014 about the serious problems of the Book of Abraham.

The following is a video of FairMormon's President, Scott Gordon, in a Q&A with John Dehlin of Mormon Stories discussing honesty and transparency in the Church. It's well worth watching and listening to (pay close attention to Scott's body language, facial expressions, and comments during the exchange):

Source @ 37:33 mark

FairMormon…has done more to destroy my testimony than any anti-Mormon source could

FairMormon creates a strawman fallacy by misrepresenting my argument. FairMormon is either unwilling or unable to comprehend that they are in a state of apostasy. They are either unable or unwilling to get that their brand of Mormonism is at direct odds with the Chapel Mormonism taught by “prophets, seers, and revelators,” scriptures, Sunday schools, Ensigns, and General Conferences.

The way FairMormon misrepresents my argument is by pinning everything on a comment that I made online on April 30, 2013; over a year after my faith crisis started and over 10 months after I stopped believing in the Church. It’s much, much more than FairMormon honestly legitimizing the issues (which I take my hat off to FairMormon and applaud them for).

The problem is not just FairMormon’s honesty in validating the legitimacy of many of the problems (again, this is what FairMormon should do and I commend them for this). The problem is what FairMormon does after acknowledging the troubling facts. FairMormon creates this warped and bizarre version of Mormonism that is very difficult for many Chapel Mormons to swallow, digest, and accept.

FairMormon destroys testimonies in the following 5 ways:

The reason why the claim that “FairMormon is where testimonies go to die” is popular among ex Mormons is because it is the overwhelmingly common experience of the majority of ex Mormons and New Order Mormons (active disbelieving Mormons) who went to FairMormon for a lifeline early in their faith crises. This is a fact that FairMormon cannot compute as they fail to really grasp how their version of Mormonism is apostate and contradictory to LDS prophets, scriptures, and Church teachings. Since many of FairMormon’s teachings directly contradict prophets, doctrine, and scriptures, FairMormon is in a direct state of apostasy. This is why FairMormon is often referred to as an “anti-Mormon” website by ex-Mormons and even by believing active Chapel Mormons who disagree with FairMormon’s bizarre brand of Mormonism.

Mormon Stories John Dehlin discusses #1-4 of the above list in addition to the problems of FairMormon and the Neal A. Maxwell Institute apologetics in the following video:

(Starts @ 30:16)

FairMormon does not speak for the Church. The Church does not officially back or support FairMormon. FairMormon’s answers are just opinion and speculation unless they only contain official responses from the Church. The only answers that matter at the end of the day are the official answers given by the Church and its official and authorized representatives. Otherwise, “prophets, seers, and revelators” have to compete for the spotlight with the likes of FairMormon and Rodney Meldrum.

If the Church and its leaders will not stand behind these unofficial apologists and their opinions/speculations, why then should we accept or even entertain the answers of these unofficial apologists if the very Church and leadership they’re defending won’t even stand behind them?

If FairMormon’s answers are so good, why isn’t the Church using or modeling FairMormon’s answers to the problems of Mormonism in a FAQ style lds.org page similar to mormon.org/faq?

It’s common theme in the Church and especially in the Mormon Public Relations Department that no one speaks for or on behalf of the Church except for the Church and its official representatives. FairMormon is attempting to redefine decades of LDS corporate and Public Relations policies and practices.

FairMormon is incorrect. FairMormon is being dishonest and deceptive here in their attempt to discredit me and the CES Letter.

The following is a screenshot of page 5 in the CES Letter:

The following is a timeline of my disaffection:

Each and every one of the following quotes that FairMormon quotes me on is dated on and after October 2, 2012. As I stated in the above screenshot of page 5 in the CES Letter, I stopped believing in the Church and its truth claims in the summer of 2012; months before the Reddit quotes were written.

My crisis of faith started in February 2012 and I stopped believing in the summer of 2012.

I never was deceptive or dishonest about where I was. I was upfront from the very beginning in my letter as the very subtitle of my letter is “Why I Lost My Testimony.” The following are statements by me in the CES Letter in which I’m open and honest to the CES Director and to my readers about my disbelief:

I never made any claim that “I’ve never visited FairMormon until after I wrote the CES Letter.” This is a lie by FairMormon.

FairMormon is grasping at straws here in their desperate and deceptive failed attempt to paint me as a liar who is deceiving everyone. This is an outrageous ad hominem and personal attack by FairMormon on my integrity and character.

The following is FairMormon’s continued deceptive and dishonest attack on my integrity and character:

Actually, FairMormon, it’s not. All of the following Reddit statements below were made long after my loss of testimony and belief in Mormonism in the summer of 2012. My online statements below say nothing about what sources I used or didn’t use for research in my faith crisis.

Let’s pull up the timeline again:

FairMormon’s entire premise in this section is based on incorrect assumptions. It’s based on the lie that I deceptively and dishonestly portrayed and presented myself as a believer when I wrote the CES Letter. I wasn’t a believer and I was 100% transparent about this from the first page in my letter to the CES Director; from the subtitle straight down to the very last page. Again, FairMormon’s entire argument and claims in this section are not only incorrect; they're deceptive and false.

As demonstrated with my transparency in the CES letter of no longer believing in the summer of 2012, I was very aware of primary sources from my past year of research on both sides by the time I started writing the CES Letter in March 2013 (my crisis of faith occurred a year earlier in February 2012).

Critics and critical websites do not hold a monopoly on primary sources. They’re also on pro-LDS websites and books, which sources I’ve also used in my research. The fact is that the overwhelmingly majority of my sources in the CES Letter contain LDS, LDS-friendly, and neutral sources.

This is just FairMormon’s failed attempt to paint me as the imbalanced ex-Mormon who gets his information only from critical and “anti-Mormon” websites and sources.

Again, FairMormon misses the point. I posted this on October 2, 2012 when I stopped believing in Mormonism a few months earlier in the summer of 2012. I’m open and transparent about this fact on page 5 of the CES Letter.

FairMormon’s point is therefore moot, invalid, and pointless.

FairMormon is referring to my Open Letter to Elder Cook, which I address here.

FairMormon butchers up and places my letter completely out of context while posting the letter in its entirety on the very bottom of the page in “Endnotes.”

FairMormon highlights sentences from the open letter to Elder Cook to show that I was familiar with some of the problems and sources as early as October 9, 2012 before I wrote the CES Letter. Well, of course I was familiar with many of the issues, problems, and sources in October 2012.

Unlike the lie about Thomas B. Marsh told by President Monson as a slight to those who left the Church, I didn’t leave the Church over “milk strippings.” I stopped believing because I did my homework.

By the way, FairMormon agrees that President Monson is wrong about Thomas B. Marsh:

(Starts @ 44:53 and ends @ 46:17)

As I demonstrated previously, when I posted the open letter to Elder Cook on October 9, 2012, I was already an unbeliever as I had stopped believing in Mormonism a few months prior in the summer of 2012. By October 2012, I had already done a tremendous amount of research before losing my belief and faith in the Church in the summer of 2012.

FairMormon’s point is therefore moot, invalid, and pointless.

FairMormon's ad hominem attacks continue.

I even said “Ouija Board” in the Book of Mormon Translation section of the CES Letter.

Again, I was no longer a believer on October 11, 2012. I shared this on page 5 in the CES Letter.

FairMormon’s point is therefore moot, invalid, and pointless.

Again, I was not a believer of the Church on November 11, 2012 when I gave the above advice to another individual’s post seeking advice about his father trying to bring him back into the Church.

The fact that I posted “MormonThink.com” nine months after my faith crisis and 4-5 months after I stopped believing in the summer of 2012 doesn’t mean anything.

Besides, I’ll leave it to my readers to decide for themselves on just how “fair” FairMormon is with MormonThink.com: www.mormonthink.com/fair.htm

FairMormon is really grasping at straws here. FairMormon’s point is moot and invalid and pointless as I already mentioned in the beginning of my letter to the CES Director that I stopped believing around 10 months before in the summer of 2012.

Yet again, I was no longer a believer on November 15, 2012 when I made this statement. As explained numerous times previously, I’ve been upfront in the very beginning of my letter that I stopped believing in the Church in the summer of 2012.

In fact, this November 15, 2012 online comment validates my claim that I left in the summer of 2012 as “I left the church a few months ago.”

As for my statement, “I want to know the most effective way to save them from Mormonism so they won’t have to go through what I went through”: I went through a horrible crisis of faith and faith transition where I was caught completely and totally off-guard by LDS Church's truth crisis that the Church concealed and hid from me my entire life.

It would be nothing short of irresponsible of me to not do everything I can as a father to prevent inevitable and unnecessary suffering down the road for my children should I allow the Church to control the narrative in hiding and concealing its origins and history from my children. Allowing the Church to continue to mislead and not tell my children the truth about Joseph Smith and its origins…only to have my children get the rug pulled from under them later in their lives would be nothing short of insanity and child abuse.

FairMormon’s point is therefore moot, invalid, and pointless.

I posted this on February 19, 2013 when I definitely no longer was a believer; about 10 months after I stopped believing in the summer of 2012, as I’ve stated in the beginning of the CES Letter.

I read “The Mormon Murders,” a book about the Mark Hofmann forgeries and murders, in May 2012 in the late stages of my faith crisis. This book was among dozens of other books I’ve read during my crisis of faith and beyond in the past year and a half.

FairMormon’s point is therefore moot, invalid, and pointless.

I also posted this in the CES Letter.

I was definitely no longer a believer on February 22, 2013 when I posted this. As mentioned repeatedly above, I was upfront in the beginning of the letter regarding my disbelief in the summer of 2012.

FairMormon’s point is therefore moot, invalid, and pointless.

Again, as mentioned in the beginning of my CES letter, I no longer believed in the summer of 2012. So, obviously I was no longer a believer when I posted this on March 26, 2013.

There’s nothing wrong with crowdsourcing for editing and general feedback on my advanced rough draft. I didn’t get much editing/content advice on changing my letter as the majority of the comments were compliments and encouragement on the letter.

FairMormon’s point is therefore moot, invalid, and pointless.

This is getting really old. Again, I was not a believer when I posted on April 12, 2013. I’m upfront about this on page 5 of the CES Letter.

Like the above answer, there is nothing wrong with crowdsourcing for editing and general feedback on my final rough draft.

FairMormon’s point is therefore moot, invalid, and pointless.

Yes, I specifically bring up this point in the CES Letter.

Again, I was no longer a believer on April 30, 2013 when I posted this. And again…I was and am completely upfront about my position of disbelief on page 5 in the CES Letter.

FairMormon’s point is therefore moot, invalid, and pointless.