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, emphasizing that the Society's focus was solely architectural.  Despite their leaders presenting a clear theological stance, they could never be 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 theological agenda.