Its bylaws forbad theological debate, insisting that the Society was solely architectural in its mission. Thus although its leaders put forth a definite theological position, they could never be charged with direct meddling in Church matters. This defence worked most of the time, but it did not lessen the hatred many had for the Society's disguised theological agenda.
The bylaws prohibited theological discussion and emphasized that the Society was solely focused on architecture.  Despite their leaders presenting a clear theological stance, they were never held accountable for direct involvement in Church affairs. This defense proved effective most of the time but did not diminish the animosity many felt toward the Society's concealed religious agenda.