I read it shortly before I was made a Mason, and I find myself disappointed that it was my introduction into the fraternity. Knight and Lomas have a history of less-than-stellar scholastic rigor (as a few have already mentioned, lots of unverifiable claims and sources), and a lot of their best points or most thought-provoking stuff is just wild guesses, speculation, or them inserting what they want to see into whatever they're looking at. Maybe it's my fault for being an undergrad, but for the moment, I'm a lot less interested in "Well, if you ask me" these days and a lot more willing to listen to "Here's what happened, no more, no less."