StayLDS.com

Has anyone heard of this book by Stephen O Smoot?
It sounds like he is a well regarded author of church history.
I understand that it came out in May 2024.

Is it worth "the read"?

I had not heard of this work before you mentioned it here MM. I was aware that Joseph received may "revelations" which are not included in the D&C. Some of that is apparently for very good reason because they seem to be contradictory to other material included in the D&C. Other stuff is likely just omission because it was seen as being of little importance or too specific to certain individuals (although that sort of begs the question of why some of the other stuff like that was included).

As to Smoot himself, I would not put him in the same category as Richard Bushman, Leonard Arrington, or Terryl Givens. In researching Smoot, he does appear to have decent academic credentials (not all from BYU) and is apparently currently a doctoral student. However, in reading some of his blog posts and his review of the Annotated Book of Mormon (a volume I have used), it is apparent he is not as objective in his presentation of history as the aforementioned group whom I do respect. In other words, his bias is clearly apparent, and he is primarily an apologist* promoting a point of view that could come straight from church HQ.

The positive side of this particular book seems to be that he (and his coauthor Brian Passantino) have combed through the Joseph Smith Papers and extracted these revelations to compile them for more ready access. If this is what you're looking for it would definitely save you the time of doing that yourself (considering the magnitude of the papers).

I will probably not add it to my list but mostly because even though I do like to read about church history I have things to read that interest me more at the moment.

*I recognize Bushman, Arrington, and Givens are also apologists in that they are defenders of the faith (the definition of apologist). There's defending the faith by presenting evidence and letting me decide for myself, and there's defending the faith by telling me what I'm supposed to believe. Bushman, Arrington and Givens are of the former, Smoot seems to be of the latter.

I agree that there appears to be a sliding scale of apologists. I also agree that I feel wary about apologists on the extreme end of the scale because I feel that they may manipulate or selectively edit the data in order to fit a narrative.

I also understand that historians naturally must make choices about how to arrange and present the data and also the stories and perspectives that they may choose to highlight. However, I feel that there are spaces where the work can shift from "telling a story about our past" to being dishonest.

I do not know anything about Brother Stephen Smoot and do not have any opinion on where he might fall on that sliding scale. I do think that it might be interesting to read the other revelations of JS in part because the canonized revelations, themselves, tell a sort of story about JS and the history of the church and those revelations were cherry picked ages ago. It can only be a good thing to have better access to something that better approaches "the rest of the story."