Well, I haven't read the book. The article doesn't really shed any light on it. And what would be "new" would be for more Mormon writers (vs. non-Mormon writers) to actually acknowledge Smith stole much of his temple shenanigans after he became a Mason himself. And then to document that historically step-by-step in terms of what he initiated when.
“Nothing is new and this stuff is well-known”....so posting it shouldn’t cause any hearburn in the tummies of mormondom. ;)
That would be new..I was hoping that is what it was about. I suppose the apologists will spin, twist and flail.