The other day John posted a video/podcast titled "Questions I Would Ask Richard Bushman."
He spent two hours asking a series of loaded questions along the lines of ""Have you stopped beating your wife?"
You can listen/watch here: https://www.mormonstories.org/podcast/questions-i-would-ask-richard-bushman/
FWIW, I listened to it while on a driving trip. I didn't waste two hours; I accelerated the replay.
He could have listed his questions in a brief post, but his objective was not really to tell us what questions he would ask Richard Bushman (or any other faithful historian).
He sounds/looks like he was venting his frustration that his audience and donors are declining and he is running out of ideas.
I respect John for his early work, when he seemed to be sincerely seeking answers and explanations. He pointed out problems with Church history narratives, Book of Mormon historicity, etc. Like Jeremy Runnels and his CES Letter, John's objections originated with what he had been taught and his perception that he'd been misled or lied to.
(Unfortunately, our SITH and M2C scholars have largely agreed with the critical approaches to these issues, as we've discussed many times on this blog and elsewhere. For example, our top LDS scholars now agree that Joseph never really translated the plates, that Joseph and Oliver misled Church members by teaching that Cumorah was in New York, etc.)
Lately, though, John's podcasts have been repetitive recitations by undoubtedly sincere people who, for one reason or another, have "left the Church." Naturally, these guests confirm John's biases.
If/when I get some free time, I'll go through the list of logical and factual fallacies John uses to persuade his listeners.
Essentially, John manipulates his audience by focusing on common human weaknesses and mistakes, found in every group or organization, and then attributes them to the Church and its teachings. It's a clever approach, but disingenuous.
