I've found it interesting that the Society PR Dept. has always said that they will 'not shield an offender from being punished by Caesar', which sounds nice until one realizes that they are not, by means of such a statement, offering to notify the authorities, EVEN WHEN THE OFFENDER HAS ALREADY CONFESSED!
Even more shocking is that they won't even testify when subpoenaed. As far as the elders were concerned, it wasn't an allegation; it was a confession.
Bill, reading this article shows that the elders will say one thing out of one corner of their collective mouth to the congregation (which may even be 'technically' correct, albeit misleading), but they will reveal their true intentions to others. Thanks for posting it.
Of course, my question is: WHO WERE THE ELDERS TRYING TO PROTECT by withholding this testimony?