No, the point is that neither you nor any other anti-Mormon has ever shown anyone any 'true" sources, if by that you mean sources that document or make claims that are either plausible on their face, verifiable with respect to other reliable historical sources, or which are not called into question by other documentary evidence. None of the historical claims ever brought against the Church by anyone has ever met those baisc scholarly requirements. Much of Church history isn't clear, and is only open to conjecture (such as Joseh's alleged adultry and sex with other men's wives etc.) Of course, anti's are going to put the worst spin on such material imaginable, and TBM's are going to call for caution and benefit of the doubt (which is the appropriate attitude regardless of the historical issues in question, when little other evidence or documentation is available). But when enough evidence is availabe, the anti position always topples headlong to the pavement after tripping over its own unlaced shoes. This has been happening for a century and a half and continues unabated.
That's pretty strong language: "...neither you nor any other...has ever shown anyone any "true" sources...." I highly doubt that such is truely the case.
When I was growing up I heard all the "anti rumours" about Joseph and his money-digging, treasure seeking escapades, polyandry, etc. Of course, I was told: "He didn't do anything of the sort. Those are anti-lies told to deceive you. Don't believe them."
Then, Arrington and his associates helped to let the cat out of the bag. And the church has been scrambling ever since.
Now we have Bushman admitting to most of this stuff (what used to be merely "anti-Mormon lies") and telling us that it all makes complete sense. It was Joseph's apprenticeship period, his necessary training in order to become a prophet.
What Prophets ever needed training in finding treasures by looking through rocks in order to later receive prophetic revelation from God? I mean, before this one, that is?
The bias is on the Mormon side.
No one in their right mind would look at the same evidence as Bushman himself lays out in his book and come up with that conclusion. Maybe that is why he is so disappointed (I have heard) that his book is not selling outside of Mormon circles. What a laugher. Scholarship my ass.