I liked this book a lot. I found the prose engaging--in fact I thought it was a page-turner. It provided a lot of color and detail on things that normally don't get attention, like the history of Kirtland prior to the arrival of Mormon missionaries, the life of the very underrated Newel K. Whitney, the Johnson family's background, etc. The best way to think about the perspective from which it is written is to compare it to Bushman, which is similar in approach. I recommend the book with some cautions explained below.
Key points illustrated well by the book:
- The role of the Campbellites in Mormon doctrinal developments
- Black Pete and related traditions influencing early Kirtland-era Mormon "charisma" stuff
- The critical role of the Morley family, the Whitneys, and the Johnsons. Whitney really paid the bills.
- The economic background of Kirtland (Staker relies heavily on existing scholarship, but I hadn't read that scholarship, so I found this discussion very helpful).
I would read an entire book on Newel K. Whitney--Staker really shows how interesting was this figure. I applaud his efforts on this, which seem to have turned up a lot of interesting details.
I gave it only 3 stars for two reasons. First, polygamy is conspicuously--I mean very conspicuously--missing here. The book's subtitle is "the historical setting of Joseph Smith's Ohio revelations." Polygamy is a pretty unavoidable component of that setting, with the Fanny Alger (whose name does not appear in the book's appendix) relationship occurring in the mid-1830s and, by some accounts, Joseph claiming that the polygamy commands coming during the Kirtland era. The time is long past that historians can ignore polygamy/polyandry, which Staker does with only a few limited exceptions (typically buried in the footnotes). In fact, I think Staker is guilty of more than just neglect; I would say that the discussion of polygamy rumors on page 107 is disingenuous bordering on dishonest. We don't need to go blaming the Morley family, or whatever, for rumors of Joseph being polygamist. We know why those rumors existed.
Second, Staker, like most Church-friendly writers, relies heavily on sources writing many years after the fact when it helps his narrative. Sometimes it's hard to tell when he's doing this--I often had to go to the footnotes, then follow a footnote to its reference, to determine in what year a source was writing. Things like the alleged healing of Elsa rely mostly on long-after-the-fact sources, but Staker takes them very seriously. However, at other times, he will dismiss an accusation on the grounds that there are no contemporary sources for it, such as the rumor that the 1832 mobbing was motivated in part by an alleged relationship between Joseph and Marinda Johnson (see p336). He may very well be correct that there was no such relationship at the time (though we know Joseph married Marinda later, while she was married to Orson Hyde!) and that rumors of it played no role in the mobbing, but he is in no position to use the lack of contemporary accounts as his reason for taking that view, given his heavy reliance on dated accounts elsewhere. I think that in the "New Mormon History", everyone needs to take very seriously the timing of sources, since the official narrative has in large part been constructed based on well-after-the-fact accounts.
The coverage of the Kirtland Safety Society is generally quite good and informative, however there are a few limitations. Sometimes Staker uses confusing language that suggest he doesn't have a great grasp of principles of banking. For example, he uses the term "capital" in a strange way, as on page 463 when he says that "deposits served as capital for the bank." This is a common semantic mistake, but it can lead to real conceptual errors. I think what he means is that deposits provided reserves for the bank (confusing "capital" and "reserves" is extremely common, and bad). An even stranger sentence, on the same page, is "Each banknote [issued by the bank] represented a borrower's debt to the financial institution." This is an odd way to describe banknotes, which are actually liabilities of the bank, not liabilities of the holder of the banknote. I think the fact that banksnotes tended to be distributed through the mechanism of loans may have confused Staker. I think the first time he recognizes that banknotes are liabilities of the bank is on page 482, and even then it could have been much more explicit. This is something that needs to be clearly explained to readers up front so they can understand how banknote issuance makes a bank extremely prone to runs.
More broadly, Staker spends a lot of time trying to understand the failure of the KSS, which is helpful and worth reading, but a lot of attempts to explain this event are really just overkill. KSS failed because there was a run on KSS and it was particularly underprepared in terms of hard currency/specie. One need not appeal to more complicated theories about the Church's enemies and so on, even though the Church's situation and controversial status no doubt did not help.