THE DISFELLOWSHIPPING OF GRY NYGÅRD — A VIOLATION OF BIBLE PRINCIPLES. PART II

The elders in the congregations of Jehovah’s witnesses have not been adequately educated in the handling of cases that can lead to disfellowshipping. When a judicial committee considers a case, the three members are advised to read what the Elders’ Handbook says about the handling of cases. However, it is not possible to learn how to treat human beings in a difficult or complex situation by reading a few lines in a book.

Several times when I served as an elder, I pointed out to leading elders the need to give elders who are handling cases, particularly those who are handling difficult cases, thorough education on how to handle cases. I do not know if my suggestions reached the Governing Body. But, to date, no such education has been given to the elders.

The procedures that both committees used in this case show their total incompetence as far as the handling of cases is concerned. This is particularly alarming because the members of the committees are experienced elders. Additionally, the elders comprising an appeal committee are, as a matter of course, supposed to be even more educated and experienced than the elders who comprised the judicial committee. In keeping with this, the members of the judicial committee have been elders for 17, 21, and 31 years respectively. One of the members of the appeal committee have been presiding overseer and coordinator in a big congregation for 27 years, another member has worked at the branch office at Ytre Enebakk for several years and has been an elder for 16 years, and the third member has been an elder for 39 years and has been a traveling representative for many years.

This situation reminds me of the words in 1 Peter 4:18 (NWT13)

 “And if the righteous man is saved with difficulty, what will happen to the ungodly man and the sinner?”

My point is that if the three members of the judicial committee who were experienced elders, and the three members of the appeal committee, who are among the most experienced elders in the circuit, can make so many elementary errors in their handling of a case, what can we expect of other elders who are less experienced?

This case, as it is illuminated in detail by the District Court and the Court of Appeal, shows that most elders have no competence in handling cases that may lead to disfellowshipping. And this shows that ordinary Jehovah’s Witnesses do not have any security under the law because the elders are not only the accusers, but also the judges and the jury, and the decisions made by the elders cannot be re-examined and evaluated by others, except by the branch office.

MY HABILITATION AND MY QUALIFICATIONS I have been one of Jehovah’s Witnesses for 59 years and an elder for 57 years. During most of this time, I have held positions in the organization (presiding overseer, coordinator, circuit overseer, district overseer, and teacher in courses for elders). Because of this, I have an intimate knowledge of the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses. My personal view is that JW is the only religion whose teachings build on the Bible. But in the 21st century, the members of the Governing Body have given themselves dictatorial powers, and they have invented and introduced 35 of the 46 disfellowshipping offenses that are listed in the  Elders’ Handbook without any basis in the Bible. The procedures in connection with the handling of judicial cases also have great weaknesses. In this section, I will criticize the way the members of the judicial committee and the appeal committee handled the case against Nygård. In this connection, I mention that four of these members are my personal friends. KS, who was a member of the judicial committee, and I were members of the Oslo Hospital Liaison Committee at the same time. RA was for three years the circuit overseer when I was presiding overseer in a congregation in this circuit. We worked together in preaching from house to house and in different other ways. TG  was an elder for two years in the congregation where I was the presiding overseer. BM was for many years the presiding overseer in a congregation that used the same Kingdom Hall that my congregation used. And we cooperated in many different ways. I do not know Gry Nygård, and I have not had any contact with her before the last few weeks.  I have never met advocate Stub-Christiansen, who is an elder in one of the congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Drammen, and I have never met advocate Danielsen.  I have a positive view of the four elders who are my friends, but I criticize the way they have handled the case against Nygård because they have violated the procedures of the handling of judicial cases that are found in the Elders’ Handbook and in the Bible. A basic task for all elders is to speak up if they see something that is wrong in the organization and remedy what is wrong, and this is what I try to do in connection with this document I have written.

THE HANDLING OF THE CASE BY THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

The majority of the court describes what happened at Hotel Plaza in the following way (Ref. 2):

On March 10, 2018, Nygård made an arrangement with a male friend, who also was separated from his spouse, to have dinner together. Nygård met the man at Oslo Plaza, and they had dinner and consumed some alcohol. After dinner, they went to the room the man had at the hotel to get Nygård’s coat that she had placed in the room. Nygård has said that she lay down on the bed for a short rest, and she fell asleep. She woke up in the morning the next day, about 11:30, and she was naked. The man told her that during the night, he had committed “porneia,” which means sexual immorality. Later that evening, or the next day, the man called Nygård and told her that he had had oral sex with her, but he stopped when he realized that she was asleep.[1]

[1] . I have found seen the clause that “he stopped when she realized that she was asleep” in what Nygård or anyone else said in the the court. Nygård confirms that the man did not say this.

A judicial committee was formed, and Nygård met the judicial committee on March 22, 2018. The majority of the Court of Appeal describes the result of the meeting in the following way (Ref. 3):

Nygård met with the judicial committee on March 22, 2018. On the basis of what she said, the judicial committee found reasons to disfellowship her from Jehovah’s Witnesses. Nygård was told about the decision on the same day.

On March 25, 2018, Nygård appealed the disfellowshipping. And she met with the appeal committee on April 2, 2018. The appeal committee agreed with the judicial committee that she should be disfellowshipped.

The basis for the judicial committee’s decision of disfellowshipping

The basis for disfellowshipping a member of the congregation is described in the Elders’ Handbook chapter 12, point 40:

 (1) Confession: Admission of wrongdoing, either written or oral, may be accepted as conclusive proof without other corroborating evidence. (Josh. 7:19) There must be two witnesses to a confession, and the confession must be clear and unambiguous.

(2) There must be two or three eyewitnesses, not just people repeating hearsay; no action can be taken if there is only one witness. (Deut. 19:15-17; John 8:17; 1 Tim. 5:19m 24, 25)

These requirements are based on the Bible. There were not two eyewitnesses to what happened at Hotel Plaza. This means that only a clear and unambiguous confession by Nygård that she has committed sexual immorality and a lack of regret on her part could lead to her disfellowshipping.

The judicial committee did not tell Nygård for which sin(s) she would be disfellowshipped

Nygård says that she did not know that she was invited to come to a judicial meeting. This is disputed by the members of the judicial committee, who say that they informed her about that. Which is correct we cannot know. But if they had invited her to a judicial meeting, they violated the most important side of such an invitation, which is written in the Elders’ Handbook chapter 15, point 7 (2):

Explain what his course of action is alleged to have been.

The purpose of this is that the accused should have time to consider all sides of the situation, and have the opportunity to present witnesses that can confirm that he is not guilty. How can we know that this was not done, i.e., that the elders did not tell her which sin she was supposed to have done, and which should have been discussed at the judicial meeting? Let us see.

In connection with a disfellowshipping, the judicial committee must write a report dealing with what happened at the meeting with the accused. This report will be put in a sealed envelope and put in the confidential archive of the congregation. If the decision of disfellowshipping is appealed, the appeal committee will get the report, and if the person in the future asks for reinstatement, the committee considering the case will read the report in order to understand why the person was disfellowshipped. On this basis, the members of the committee will decide whether the person will be reinstated.

The report from the judicial committee that was written seven days after the meeting with Nygård, says (Ref 4):

GN [Nygård] sent a message saying that she possibly was guilty of porneia. On the background of conversations with her, a judicial committee is formed, and the members were RA, TGU, and KS (CO: coordinator).

GN tells that she had made an appointment with a brother from Nittedal to eat together. Later in the evening, they went to the hotel room that the brother had rented for the occasion. More alcohol was consumed, and they embraced each other. On the basis of her words, she does not remember what had happened. GN falls asleep and wakes up naked. They have breakfast the next day, and they depart. They also have some contact on the telephone in the days after the dinner.

The opinion of GN is that because she does not remember anything, she is not guilty of porneia. The committee asks if she feels that she has been raped or has been sexually abused, something that she consistently denies. GN tells that they spoke about the episode the next day, and as she says, “everyone can make errors.” GN and the brother from Nittedal evidently are not enemies. This situation has not created a tense relationship between them. They still have contact and speak with each other by telephone. GN calls the man from which she is separated some days after the meeting with the judicial committee, and she says that he is free to marry again. Both GN and the brother from Nittedal are separated at this time but are not free to marry again.

This is a strange report because everything that such a report should contain is not there. The report does not say anything about which wrongdoing Nygård has committed nor does it specify any evidence corroborating such supposed wrongdoing. And neither does the report say anything about whether Nygård expressed regret or not over such wrongdoing.

The report says that she sent a message to an elder where she wrote that she was not certain whether she was guilty of porneia. The report does not say anything about how her question was handled by the committee. The only “accusation” against her in the report is that she had dinner with a man with whom she was not married, that they had drunk alcoholic beverages, and that they had embraced. None of these actions can be defined as porneia.

Because this report will be the basis for the considerations of an appeal committee, and the basis for a committee that will consider reinstatement, we must assume that the judicial committee did not know about any additional wrongdoing of Nygård above and beyond what is written in the report, because any other serious wrongdoing would be required to have been included in that report, and therefore should have been included.

Because the report of the judicial committee does not say  which concrete sin she was guilty of, and the members of the judicial committee and the appeal committee neither told the District Court nor the Court of Appeal of which concrete sin she was guilty of, we can conclude with certainty that neither did the elders who invited her to the judicial meeting tell her about any concrete sin before the meeting with the judicial committee.

She was disfellowshipped on the basis of the umbrella term “sexual immorality” without mentioning any concrete act of sin that can be classified as “sexual immorality.” It is a basic principle in Norwegian courts that a person cannot be judged for a supposed crime that is not defined, and the same principle is valid among Jehovah’s Witnesses, as the quotation from the Elders’ book shows. This means that by disfellowshipping Nygård without telling her the concrete sin for which she was disfellowshipped, both the judicial committee and the appeal committee have set aside and violated Nygård’s security under the law.

The interrogation of Nygård

I use the word “interrogation” because the way the members of the judicial committee treated Nygård, as is seen in their accounts in the District Court, is a violation of all the basic procedures for the handling of judicial cases that are written in the Elders’ Handbook.

According to Nygård, she told the judicial committee that she fell asleep on the bed in the room with clothes on, and she woke up at 11:30 the next day without clothes. She also said that the man with whom she had dinner told her that he had oral sex with her while she was sleeping.

What should the members of the judicial committee have done? They should have asked a few questions about the situation and regarding the man that she was together with. And then, they should have followed the course of action that is mentioned in The Watchtower (Study edition) of December 2019, page 14, where the issue of an engaged woman who was raped when she was in the field is discussed. Deuteronomy 22:25-27 (NWT13) says:

²⁵  “If, however, the man happened to meet the engaged girl in the field and the man overpowered her and lay down with her, the man who lay down with her is to die by himself, ²⁶  and you must do nothing to the girl. The girl has not committed a sin deserving of death. This case is the same as when a man attacks his fellow man and murders him. ²⁷  For he happened to meet her in the field, and the engaged girl screamed, but there was no one to rescue her.

The law of Moses said that an engaged woman who voluntarily had sex with a man should die. If a man tried to rape a woman in the town, and she screamed, someone could hear her screams and come to rescue her. But if a man tried to rape a girl while she was in the field, no one would be able to hear her screams. The Watchtower comments on the situation in this way:

In that case, the woman was given the benefit of the doubt. In what sense? It was assumed that she “screamed, but there was no one to rescue her.” So she was not committing adultery. The man, however, was guilty of rape and adultery because he “overpowered her and lay down with her,” the engaged woman.

The law of Moses is not valid today. But the principles on which it was built are eternal. The principle, in this case, is that when there is no proof of a serious sin (here: sexual immorality), the person cannot be judged to be guilty.

Nygård asked the elders for their help, and she told them about what had happened. There were no witnesses to the situation because the man refused to witness in court. Therefore, the elders should, by her words, have accepted that she was not guilty of the oral sex, and so a judicial committee meeting should not have been convened.

In the District Court, the following exchange occurred between the judge (D) and KS (one of the members of the judicial committee):

D: You. A last short question. The issue about voluntariness. I think it is well documented that it is mentioned somewhere in the Book of the court, I believe. Have you considered the issue of voluntariness in relation to this sexual offense?

KS: No, we did not do that.

This is really sensational. Nygård told the judicial committee that after she woke up, the man told her that he had performed oral sex with her. And the crucial issue was whether she in any way had some guilt in connection with this. And this question was not considered by the committee at all. In this case, the judicial committee should have followed the guidance of the above-mentioned Watchtower. There were no witnesses, and therefore, they should have given the woman “the benefit of the doubt.” Or expressed in a better way, they should have accepted the words of Nygård.

But instead of accepting her words, they started interrogating her. Why did they do that when Nygård told them that she was sleeping and did not know anything about what had happened? The District Court refers to the second text message of Nygård. In the first text message to KS, Nygård writes (Ref 2):

Hello. I need to speak with you elders. I have come into a situation that I do not know how to handle, and I think it is good to speak to you for safety’s sake. I hope that this will be possible. Greetings from Gry.

KS asked her to describe the situation, and she wrote (Ref. 2)

Yes. The situation is that something happened while I was asleep. I am uncertain whether I have crossed the border to porneia.

On two occasions in his account to the District Court, KS refers to this text message:

This is evidently a person with a bad conscience for something — the reason why she wants to speak with the elders. So evidently, there is something that leads her to tell us something, something for which she has a very bad conscience.

In this text message, it is implied that this is a person with a bad conscience because the person has violated biblical principles. This is actually very clear in the text message, together with a visit at a restaurant together with a person who is in the same situation, who is not married.

The conclusions that KS draws are unbelievable! The text messages clearly show that Nygård is asking for help to come to know if she has crossed the border of porneia. I take her words “to speak to you for safety’s sake” in the first text message to imply the opposite of a bad conscience. Her opinion is that she has not crossed the border of porneia because the situation happened while she was sleeping.  But “for safety’s sake,” the elders have to be informed about the situation.

Drawing the conclusion that the text messages show that the sender has a bad conscience simply is impossible. It is not even to take the words in the worst possible meaning, it is to take the words out of their context. The words of KS show that the members of the judicial committee did not have a positive view of Nygård from the outset. They were suspicious, and when she told that the man had oral sex with her while she was sleeping, they were quite certain that she was hiding the truth.

The sheer amount of questions that they asked her also indicates that they were prejudiced against her. Please consider the following exchange between KS and the advocate of Jehovah’s Witnesses (R):

R: did you ask her concrete questions?

KS: Yes, we asked her a great number of questions.

R. But do you think that they particularly are connected with this situation [about what happened at the room of the hotel]?

KS: Yes.

When the judge (D) poses questions to KS, he gives different answers:

D: Did Nygård tell exactly what happened at the room of the hotel?

KS: Yes, they drank alcohol, and there was also, as I mentioned earlier, kissing and caressing. She also said that there was oral sex.

D: Did she say under what circumstances the last thing occurred?

KS: Sorry, what?

D: Did she say anything more about under what circumstances oral sex occurred? Anything about that?

KS: No, actually, when we are a judicial committee, we do not go on, trying to elucidate on all the details. Therefore, when we are in front of a person who says it, we do not dig any more into it. I think it is obvious that when one gets the idea of it, an account of the gist of it, to use this expression, then we do not dig anymore into it. We did not do that.

The crucial point, in this case, is that while Nygård reported that the man had oral sex with her while she was sleeping, did she bear any responsibility for this? When the judge asks, KS answers that Nygård said oral sex had occurred. When the judge asked about the circumstances under which this occurred, KS answers that the judicial committee did not want to elucidate the details about this and did not ask her. But in his answer to the advocate of Jehovah’s Witnesses, KS said that they asked her “a great number of questions” about what happened at the hotel room — evidently because they were suspicious and were certain that she did not tell them the truth.

 The important question about whether Nygård consented to the oral sex was not considered

As mentioned, no form of sexual relations between Nygård and the man is mentioned in the report from the judicial committee. But in his exchange with the judge in the District Court, KS said that Nygård mentioned oral sex, but he could not remember the circumstances in which it happened.

If it is correct that the man performed oral sex on Nygård while she was sleeping, he was guilty of rape, according to the Criminal Law § 291, letter b. The question about whether Nygård consented to the oral sex or not was not considered by the judicial committee. In connection with the text message that contained the word porneia, Nygård’s advocate (DA) asked KS in the District Court:

DA: Is there anything [in this text message], that is important apart from the word porneia?

KS: Yes. It is clearly written that she connects porneia to something that happened when she was asleep.

DA: Did you ask her what happened while she was sleeping?

KS: I cannot remember that.

DA: No. But now in hindsight, do you think it had been important to ask about it, because…?

KS: I feel that in your question or in the answer it is implied, or if we pose the question; ‘if she feels that she is raped or abused?’, that it is implied in your answer or our answer, that we…And she does not do that. So we did not feel that it was a… No. but as mentioned, I cannot directly remember if we asked about it.

The answer of KS is somewhat unclear. But it seems that he feels that the question of the advocate is a trap. If he says that they asked her what happened while she was asleep, her natural answer would have been that she was sexually abused. But that was not the case, according to KS. Later the judge (D) and KS had the following exchange:

D: Has the question about whether she consented to the sexual criminal offense been considered?

KS: No, it was not considered.

On the background of the answers of KS, how are we to understand the following words in the report from the judicial committee: “The committee asks if she feels that she has been raped or sexually abused, something that she consistently denies.” Would not this show that, in contrast to the testimony of KS, that consent or no consent was considered after all? The answer is No.

After her denial of rape or sexual abuse, I would have posed the following question: “The man told you that he had performed oral sex on you when you were sleeping? Is that not the same as sexual abuse?” Such a question could have shown what she really meant when she denied rape or sexual abuse. That the members of the judicial committee did not find out what she meant by denying rape or sexual abuse reflects the lack of competence of the members of the judicial committee as far as the handling of judicial cases is concerned.

At the time of the meeting with the judicial committee, she did not know that having sex with someone who is sleeping is defined as rape by the Criminal Law. The meaning of her denial, that the majority of the court of Appeal explained, was that she did not want to report the man to the police, and therefore she did not define what he had done as sexual abuse. In the Court of Appeal, Nygård also denied rape and sexual abuse. But the judge asked several questions, and therefore he understood what she meant (Ref. 20, 21):

The view of the majority after the presentation of evidence is that what has been decisive for the members of the judicial committee and the appeal committee has been that Nygård in a message to KS asked if she had been guilty of  “porneia,” and that she before the judicial committee denied that she meant that she had been raped or had experienced sexual abuse. She has repeated this in the Court of Appeal, and among other things, she has explained that she did not think that the man was guilty of a violation of the Criminal Law and that she had not considered reporting him to the police. At that time, she did not feel that she was raped and that what had happened to her could be viewed as rape according to Criminal Law.

What kind of sexual relations that were performed, whether Nygård most of the time or the whole time slept during the sexual relation, and whether she agreed with it, seems not to have been discussed during the meeting in the judicial committee or something that the members of the committee refused to consider.

There was no clear and unambiguous confession

The  Elders’ Handbook says: “There must be two witnesses to a confession, and the confession must be clear and unambiguous.”  The chairman of the judicial committee, KS, wrote in the undated document entitled: “A statement of the chairman of the original judicial committee in the case of Gry Helen Nygård” that was attached to the Respondent’s notice 2 to Follo District Court dated October 30, 2019, from advocate Stub-Christiansen:

On March 22, 2018 we had a meeting with GHN because she had confessed that she had performed sexual immorality, that according to the Bible is a sin.

In the Respondent’s notice to the Borgarting Court of Appeal of 28 April 2020, advocate Stub-Christiansen, the advocate of Jehovah’s Witnesses, wrote:

Nygård has earlier confessed that she has committed a serious biblical sin and has been disfellowshipped because of this.

neither of these statements is true. Nygård had not at any time confessed a serious biblical sin and was disfellowshipped because of this. But let us take a closer look at these statements.

In connection with the decision of the judicial committee that Nygård was guilty of porneia, we find in the following exchange between the advocate of Nygård and KS in the District Court:

DA: Then I continue. You mentioned that there were some loose ends and something that does not make sense. Can you elucidate that?

KS: Well, when we stand in front of a person who tells us about what happened; we should not call it a date, but in any case, they were happy together, at a restaurant, they drink alcohol, come to this hotel room, drink alcohol — and then the loose end that is somewhat difficult to understand, to wind up, that she falls asleep.

And afterward when she wakes up naked on the next day, then “We are friends, we have breakfast together, and that is it.” Then I think it is somewhat difficult to understand in a way.., Well, are all cards on the table? Does Gry cooperate with the judicial committee? Does she only answer the questions that she is asked, or is she open and cooperates? When I, in a way, did not get this impression…then I become very uncertain regarding what she says.

DA: Do you then think that something must have happened and that she must have passed the border for porneia?

KS: Yes, that is what she herself says, so we need not wonder about that.

DA: But you said that it was likely because there were some loose ends and (…)

KS: No, it was something that we discussed. After she had given her version, she would not be present in the room, and then we discussed it in the committee. We went through what had happened, and we see—what happened here? OK. You fall asleep, yes, and that was it. And then, from this point to be friends and eat breakfast and then have contact afterward— through these years…

DA: My time is limited, so please be specific. Which meaning had the loose ends — which meaning related to the decision?

KS: Of course, when we feel that all cards are not on the table.  We feel that it is…We do not get a true account of what happened…Then we get the impression that this is not a human being who regrets what she has done. And she does not want to take the responsibility for what she has done. There are many excuses all the way as to why she happened to be in this situation.

DA: Do you know whether there are some rules regarding the proof when someone has stepped over the borders of porneia?

KS: Please. One time more, what did you say?

DA: Do you know whether there are some rules showing when someone has stepped over the borders of porneia, if there, for example, is a judicial committee?

KS: Of course. For example, what witnesses have to say. But here we have a very clear testimony from herself. She says in the text message, clearly, that it is connected with porneia. This is in itself the most powerful witness. Or other witnesses, that could be the one who was present at the hotel room.

DA: Yes. But you built on a confession. Is that correctly understood?

KS: Yes

DA: Yes, is it correct that two witnesses are needed for the confession?

KS: Not if the person herself gives…. an honest account. That is good enough, and there is no need to test it.

DA: For whom?

KS: Well, if she tells a judicial committee that she is uncertain whether she has stepped over the border of porneia. then it is in itself… We do not need two witnesses for…

DA: If she says that she is uncertain about it, is this good enough to view as a confession? Is that what you are saying?

KS: No, I do not say that. I only say that what she said, what she has written…

DA: (…) Is it a confession when she is uncertain?

KS: No, but there is something that is very clear in the text here, that she is not writing for fun. Here is evidently a person who has a bad conscience for something, and that is the reason why she wants to speak with the elders. It is evidently something that causes her to tell something to us— of which she has a bad conscience.

DA: She wrote that she needs help to cope with a situation that she does not know how to handle. Do you interpret this as a confession if that is the way I understand you?

KS: Not only this, but together with what she says to the judicial committee and her account, then this is a confession as we view it, yes.

This is a very interesting exchange because this is a discussion of the “proof” that Nygård is guilty of porneia. KS mentions that the committee had to draw the answers out of Nygård, and this shows that she has something to hide. The problem with this view is that Nygård had told the committee that the man had oral sex with her while she was sleeping. And she cannot answer questions about something she does not know.

This shows that as far as porneia is concerned, there are no legitimate questions to pose, except the question that the members of the committee must ask themselves: Is there any proof that she is lying when she says that the man had oral sex with her while she was sleeping?

We should note that the result of “the great number of questions” that the committee members posed to Nygård was that the two had consumed alcohol after they came to his room and had embraced. Nygård denies that this occurred, and she also denies claims attributed to her that were added later — that the two became intimate, kissed each other, and that they both lay down on the bed.

I will now point out the most important points of the exchange between Nygård’s advocate and KS. The advocate asks if it is likely that Nygård is guilty of porneia. KS answers: “That is what she herself says, so we need not wonder about that.” As we see later in the exchange, KS refers to her text message with the words:  Yes. The situation is that something happened while I was asleep. I am uncertain whether I have crossed the border to porneia.” KS takes these words as a confession that she is guilty of porneia.

Nygård’s advocate now discusses the concept of “confession,” and KS confirms that the basis for the decision of the judicial committee of disfellowshipping is that Nygård has given a confession. According to KS, the confession is that she is uncertain whether she has crossed the border to porneia. The advocate asks: “Is it a confession that she is uncertain?” KS evidently feels that he is on shaky ground because of this question. And as a contradiction of what he previously has said, he answers the question with No. Then he continues saying that because Nygård wanted to speak with the elders, she obviously had a bad conscience.

The advocate then asks if her words that she has come into a situation that she does not know how to handle is a confession that she is guilty of porneia. KS says that it is not only the text message but the sum total of what she said to the judicial committee, combined with the text message shows that she is guilty of porneia. We note particularly that he does not tell the court what Nygård said to the committee.

It must be this same situation, as recounted by KS, that both KS and the advocate of Jehovah’s Witnesses refer to when he claims that Nygård has confessed that she is guilty in a serious sin. But the discussion above clearly shows that the claim that Nygård had made a confession that she was guilty of sexual immorality is wrong!

However, if the situation mentioned above is his actual reference, the advocate contradicts himself in the same letter, dated April 28, 2020. He writes:

The religious judicial committee concluded that even though Nygård explained to the judicial committee that she at one time was asleep, the judicial committee has performed an overall consideration of all the parts of her account, which also includes conscious actions before and after she claims that she was sleeping…

She told that parts of the action occurred while she was sleeping, but as it was revealed in the accounts of the witnesses in the District Court, there were a number of judgments that the judicial committee made that led to the conclusion that there was a violation of the religious morality that is practiced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The words of the advocate that “she has said that parts of the action occurred while she was sleeping” are not correct. What she actually said was that the whole action —that the man performed oral sex on her — occurred while she was sleeping.

The account of the advocate dealing with the actions of the judicial committee accords with what the witnesses said in the District Court. He wrote that the reason for Nygård’s disfellowshipping was that the judicial committee performed “an overall consideration of all the parts of her account” and that “there were a number of judgments that the judicial committee made.”

It is quite surprising that advocate Stub-Christiansen, who himself is a Witness for Jehovah and an elder, wrote this. Because he shows that the judicial committee has violated the most important of the procedures for the handling of judicial cases that are written in the Elders’ Handbook. As I several times have pointed out, no one can be disfellowshipped if there are not two eyewitnesses to at least one action that is included in the concept of porneia, or there is a clear and unambiguous confession of at least one action that is included in the concept sexual immorality.

But as the advocate writes, and which the elders in court confirmed, the basis for the disfellowshipping is “an overall consideration of all the parts of her account.”  This is a clear violation of both of the requirements of proof found in the Bible and in the Elders’ Handbook. It is quite ironic that the words of the advocate show that the judicial committee did not have proof that Nygård was guilty of sexual immorality. If such proof had existed, “an overall consideration of all the parts of her account” would not have been necessary. In that case, the committee would have presented the proof.

In view of the words of advocate Stub-Christiansen that I now have discussed, his claim in his Respondent’s notice dated  April 28, 2020, that “Nygård has earlier confessed that she has committed a serious biblical sin and has been disfellowshipped because of this,” is wrong. The words of KS, that have been quoted above show that Nygård has not presented a clear and unambiguous confession, not even a hint of a confession.

The basis for the decision that Nygård was guilty of sexual immorality is “an overall consideration of all the parts of her account.” This is a clear violation of the requirement of the Elders’ Handbook and the Bible — that two or three eyewitnesses or a clear and unambiguous confession are necessary in order for someone to be declared guilty of a serious sin.

There is also another witness in the District Court who claimed that Nygård had confessed that she is guilty of sexual immorality. This is shown in the exchange between the judge of the District Court (D) and RB, who is an elder in the Ski congregation.

D: Just generally speaking. It is described somewhere in the documents that Nygård told her husband that he was free to remarry if my memory serves me. Something similar. What is the meaning of this?

RB: Well… It has a meaning in relation to what he can do. The Bible says that a person is free to remarry if, i.e., sexual immorality, has occurred. So this is an admittance that one has done something if one says this to someone. It has a meaning what the previous spouse can do.

D: So if someone says this, it implies that one is guilty of sexual immorality related to the spouse?

RB: Yes.

The way the words of RB are applied in the following way:  When Nygård contacted her husband, from whom she is separated, telling him that he was free to remarry, this is an admittance that she is guilty of sexual immorality (porneia). But this conclusion is wrong, and we can see this from the exchange between Nygård’s advocate (DA) and Nygård (G).

DA: Lastly. I saw you had a strong reaction regarding something RB said at the end of his statement. Will you say something about it, about the issue of being free to remarry?

G: Yes. He said that by contacting my husband, I admitted that…when I said he was free to remarry, I admitted that I was guilty of porneia.  I reacted to that because this is the procedure — at that time, I was told that I was guilty of porneia — but I did not know why they said that. But I wanted to do what was right, so I contacted him and said that. I did not say, “I am guilty of porneia.” I said, “You are free to remarry.” Then I tried one time more to tell him the frames of what I said. He knows that I slept, and he knows that I do not know anything of what happened. I did not say anything to him that I did not tell to the others —this was what happened.

DA: so this information does not mean that you confessed a sin.

G: No, no, I did not that.

I asked Nygård about this situation, and she told me that the members of the judicial committee had told her to contact her husband telling him that he was free to remarry. But later, when she understood the real meaning of the situation, she retracted her words to him because she had not committed sexual immorality.

This situation illustrates how easy it is to draw wrong conclusions when a person does not have all the facts.

The basis for the claim that Nygård did not regret her sin and therefore was disfellowshipped  

Now we have a strange situation. KS claims that Nygård has confessed that she is guilty of porneia, but he does not tell which of her actions can be defined as porneia. Then the members of the judicial committee consider whether she regrets that she is guilty of porneia, although she denies that she is guilty of porneia. And now we come to what really is an absurdity, which is clearly seen in the exchange between the advocate of Jehovah’s Witnesses and KS:

R: Did you discuss whether she expressed regret for what she had done?

KS: Yes, we did that.

R: OK. Did you tell Nygård what she had to do in order to….?

KS: Yes, that is an important part of the duty of a judicial committee, that we consider whether the person regrets the actions. Our goal is to help the person who is in a very difficult situation. We asked questions in order to show her —to understand whether she considered that — whether she really regretted what she had done. And then we ask questions like: Has she confessed her actions to her husband? Has she spoken with him? Has she told him what she has done? Has she expressed regrets to him? What about her relationship with God? Has she…which emotions has she expressed? Has she put all cards on the table? This is what indicates that she regrets her actions. Or, must we draw the answers out of her mouth? Does she only give a short answer to what she is asked, and she does not say anything more? These are factors that can show whether she regrets what she has done or not. We said to her: “Please, put all cards on the table. Please tell us everything that happened?” and we considered all these points, particularly how her relationship with God was affected. We discussed that. It is an important side in connection with the expression of regrets.

The absurd part of this is that the members of the judicial committee constructed a situation of imagined “facts” predicated on their assumption that she had committed sexual immorality. They claim that she has confessed porneia without telling her which porneia-actions she has done. Then they ask her if she has told her husband what she has done and asked God for his forgiveness. But she does not know which serious sin she is supposed to have  committed and for which to express regret. And so when she has not done what they expected, they take this as evidence that she has brazenly not regretted her sins.

But the problem is that she does not concur with the judicial committee’s conclusion, and so has not confessed to being guilty of porneia. Both in the District Court and in the Court of Appeal, she vehemently denied that. And because she has not done what the committee expects of her in keeping with the committee’s view that she has committed porneia, something that she denies, then they take this as proof that she does not regret her sins — is unrepentant — and thus, must be disfellowshipped from the congregation.

It is interesting that the majority of the court of Appeal has understood the reason the disfellowshipping may have been contrived by the committee. We read (Ref. 20):

The majority of the court concludes that the preponderance of the evidence shows that the question about oral sex — or other forms of sexual relations — has been treated in a superficial way or not treated at all at the meetings of the judicial committee or the appeal committee. The result of this is that the views of the elders in these committees regarding what Nygård is guilty of are different…

That this has not happened [that the case has not received correct handling] is supported by the explanation of KS that the judicial committee would not go into details. The result of this, according to the view of the majority, is that the members of the committees have used selective samples of facts and/or imagined “facts” as the basis for the decision of disfellowshipping.

I asked Nygård about this situation, and she answered that the word regret only was mentioned one time. The member of the judicial committee RAN asked: “Is there anything else where you feel regret that you want to tell us?” Nygård did not understand exactly what he meant, and she answered No. She was not asked about regret regarding what happened at Hotel Plaza.

What happened at the meeting between Nygård and the judicial committee, I will describe as psychological terror from three men against a defenseless woman, who had asked for their help in connection with a situation that she did not know how to handle.

Nygård denies that she is guilty of porneia. The judicial committee has contrived a situation of imagined “facts” asserting that she is guilty, but without pointing out which action/actions she is guilty of. Because Nygård has not confessed that she is guilty of porneia to her husband, from whom she is separated, the members of the committee conclude that she does not regret what she has done, and they disfellowship her. But she cannot express regret for something that she is unaware of or does not agree with.

What is the reason why the accounts of the witnesses are so different?

The majority of the court wrote that Nygård was disfellowshipped because of what she told the judicial committee. So what did she tell the committee? The report of the judicial committee says that she had dinner with a friend, and both drank alcohol. They went to his room at the hotel, drank more alcohol, and embraced. Nygård fell asleep and does not remember anything before the next morning when she woke up naked.

This account confirms that Nygård told the committee that she was sleeping and did not know anything about the sexual assault on her, but that she was later told about. But there is a discrepancy between the account of Nygård and the report. Nygård said that she went to the room of the man to get her coat in order to leave the hotel. She has the chronic fatigue syndrome ME which often makes her exhausted. So, she lay down on the bed for a short rest. She fell asleep and did not wake up before the next morning. However, the report says that they went to the room of the man, drank more alcohol, and they embraced each other before she fell asleep. She categorically denies this. In the District Court, the members of the committees said that Nygård and the man were intimate, they kissed each other, and they caressed each other, that she again denies.

When two persons who belong to two different congregations are guilty of a serious sin together, the Elders’ Handbook, chapter 12, point 66, says:

If an individual confesses to wrongdoing that involves a person in another congregation, the elders should promptly pass along what they know to the elders of the other congregation and allow them time to investigate. Does the individual admit the wrong? Do their accounts match, or are there significant differences? The elders handling the matter should communicate freely and cooperate in obtaining the facts. There are many advantages to interviewing individuals jointly to ascertain what actually occurred and to clarify discrepancies. (Prov. 18:13, 17) If a joint meeting is held, thereafter, the elders handling the matter from each congregation will withdraw and handle the case of the person from their own congregation. The elders in one congregation should generally not conclude their case before the elders of the other congregation have fully investigated the situation.

This counsel was not followed. But the judicial committee should not be criticized for this because there can be reasons why they treated the case in a different way. However, the elder RB in the Ski congregation tells that the man admitted everything he had done, expressed regret, and was not disfellowshipped. This shows that there had been contact between the elders in the Ski congregation and the Nittedal congregation.

The following scenario is possible: Nygård met with the judicial committee on March 22, 2018, but it is strange that the report from that meeting was first written seven days later, on March 29. It is possible that the judicial committee, after their meeting with Nygård, got some information from the elders in Nittedal, and that is the reason for the words in the report, “More alcohol was consumed, and they embraced each other.” It is not said in the report that it was Nygård who said this — Nygård both denies that alcohol was consumed in the hotel room and that they embraced each other.

The meeting with Nygård and the appeal committee occurred on April 4, 2018, six days after the report from the meeting of the judicial committee was written, and it is possible that the judicial committee got more information from the elders in Nittedal about the man’s testimony. The judicial committee could have given this information to the appeal committee, and that is the reason for the extra details of what is supposed to have happened after Nygård and the man came to his room.

But if this information came from the man in the Nittedal congregation through the elders in that congregation, would that mean that the man was lying? Not necessarily. One possibility is that the man was drunk, and what he said to the elders was what he remembered or thought he remembered. His memory could have been selective, i.e., colored by his later actions, because if there were some intimacy between the two before Nygård fell asleep, that could partly explain why he was tempted to have oral sex with her when she was asleep.

If the information given by the four committee members in court comes from the man from Nittedal, it cannot be used as proof of wrongdoing because he would, in that case, represent only one witness, and if the information comes from him, we cannot know if it is distorted by the one who gave it to the elders in the Ski congregation. In any case, we must conclude that nothing of what the contradictory accounts of four elders said happened in the room of the man before Nygård fell asleep constitutes sexual immorality (porneia) and can be used as a reason for disfellowshipping.

The meaning of the expanded definition of porneia

The evaluation of the majority of the court of how the members of the judicial committee had been thinking is by and large correct. But there is most likely also another issue that is the reason for the decision of the judicial committee, namely, the expanded meaning of the Greek word porneia that was made up and invented by the Governing Body. The Elders’ Handbook Chapter 12, point 3 (1) has the following definition of porneia — the words after the scripture references are new.

It includes oral sex, anal sex, and manipulation of the genitals between individuals not married to each other (w06 15.7. pp. 29-30; w04 2/15 p. 13; w00 11.1 p. 8 par. 6; w83 6/1. pp. 23-26: lvs p. 120) Por·nei’a does not require skin-to-skin contact, copulation (as in penetration), or sexual climax.

The Watchtower of  November 2018, page 25, gives an example of the new view:

For example, lap dancing is a form of lewd conduct that is becoming more common in the world. Some might excuse such conduct, reasoning that it is not the same as outright sexual relations. But do such actions reflect the thinking of God, who abhors every kind of badness?

Lap dancing is defined as “an activity in which a usually seminude performer sits and gyrates on the lap of a customer.” Depending on the facts of an actual situation, this could constitute sexual immorality requiring judicial action. A Christian who has taken part in such activity should seek help from the elders.​—Jas. 5:14, 15.

The new definition of porneia expands the definition of the word greatly. But at the same time, the concept becomes more fluid and unclear, and it opens the possibility for elders in different congregations to interpret porneia in different ways as they chose. The discussion between the judge of the District Court, KS, and the attorney for Jehovah’s Witnesses implies that the new and expanded definition was included in the decision of the judicial committee (Ref. 37):

D: Just to pose the question in another way. Was it known who performed this action [oral sex], or if it happened when she was asleep?

KS: It is clear that it was the man who was in the room who did it. Gry insists that it happened when she was asleep.

D: So you knew that?

KS: Yes, she stated that.

D: It has also been an issue, a question, what was the reason for the disfellowshipping? I will be careful not to go into the interpretation that you have. But it has been said that the reason that she received oral sex was because of what happened in the room of the hotel, and because she slept over in the room and what happened there.

KS: Yes, and also connected to porneia. That is the biblical argument; it is porneia — if we can use that expression because all know this expression. Yes, that was the reason.

D: And a short last question: The issue of consent. I think it is documented in the book of the court, I think. Have you considered the question about consent in connection with the sexual crime?

KS: No, we have not done that.

D: No

D: I have another question.

KS: Yes, please..

D: You mentioned earlier that this Gry, that there were caressing and then she fell asleep. Would that be included in the porneia concept?

KS: Yes, that is perhaps a little different from what one thinks. The Greek concept of porneia is not only connected with oral sex or penetration, to use such words. But it can also include caressing another person and touching the genital organs. You need not go into the underpants, but it can also be on the outside on the clothes, so to speak. Porneia is a much wider concept — and as I said, it can include caressing another or stimulate or manipulate his or her genital organs. That is correct.

It is clear that KS here uses the Governing Body’s new and much wider definition of porneia. He also says that the reason for the disfellowshipping is porneia. And he explains this by pointing out that caressing another person or stimulating or manipulating his or her genital organs while they are clothed can also be porneia.

Here we approach a strange point. The only information that the report from the judicial committee contains regarding what happened in the hotel room of the man is that “they embraced each other.” There are not two witnesses to what happened in that room, and Nygård denies that they consumed alcohol in the room and that they embraced each other. Therefore, on what basis does KS when he in the District Court implies but does not directly say, that there was caressing and stimulation of the genital organs of the two and that this was the porneia alluded to?

A correct theocratic procedure in accordance with the Elders’ Handbook would require that if this did happen, it should have been written in the report of the judicial committee. But the report does not mention any caressing and stimulation of the genital organs of the two. The report merely says that Nygård said she fell asleep, and she did not know what happened while she was sleeping.

Even stranger is the account of KS when he says that consent or no consent on the part of Nygård was not considered by the judicial committee. But this is the most important point in this case. If Nygård was guilty of porneia, she must have agreed with the caressing and stimulation of the genital organs if that happened and must have consented to the oral sex. But, as KS testifies, the question regarding consent or agreement has not been considered by the committees.

This means that Nygård, on the one hand, was disfellowshipped because she agreed to take part in actions that are porneia. But on the other hand, the judicial committee had not considered whether Nygård agreed to participate in these actions. Thus, the conclusion of the judicial committee is self-contradictory. And here again, we see the total incompetence of the members of the judicial committee as far as the handling of judicial cases is concerned.

The conclusions regarding the handling of the case by the judicial committee are:

• Nygård has not confessed that she is guilty of porneia.
• There are no witnesses that can confirm that she is guilty of porneia.
• The judicial committee disfellowshipped her because of porneia. But she has not been informed about which of her actions constituted the porneia that she is accused of.
• Because she does not know which act of porneia she is supposed to have done, she cannot express any regret for what she does not know but is supposed to have done.
• She has gone as far as she can in the direction of expressing regret by saying that she is sorry for exercising poor judgment by putting herself in a situation where oral sex was performed on her while she was sleeping.
• The question about her possible consent in connection with the oral sex has not been considered by the judicial committee. But in spite of that, she was disfellowshipped because she consented to the oral sex.

That Nygård was disfellowshipped on the basis of what has been discussed above is such a serious error that the three members of the judicial committee should step down as elders because they are not qualified to serve as such.

THE HANDLING OF THE CASE BY THE APPEAL COMMITTEE

The purpose of the appeal committee is to test whether the considerations of the judicial committee that led to disfellowshipping accord with the procedures of the handling of cases that are found in the Book for Elders. The procedure is that the appeal committee gets the written report from the judicial committee and also gets oral information about the case from the committee members.

However, here we may have a trap, namely, that the members of the judicial committee may give an oral report that is unbalanced, and which influences the members of the appeal committee toward a biased conclusion before they have considered the case. This is something that happens in a great number of cases. And if the members of the appeal committee are not used to making personal decisions, it is natural that they will take the side of the judicial committee —the members, after all, are their co-elders. This is also the reason why appeal committees only rarely annul decisions of judicial committees to disfellowship.

It would have been better if the appeal committee was only given the written report and nothing more and the disfellowshipped person was first to present his case to the appeal committee anew. On this basis, the members of the appeal committee could make an independent judgment of the case with much less influence from the judicial committee.

The considerations of the judicial committee as the basis for the considerations of the appeal committee  

According to the Elders’ Handbook chapter 17, point 7, the appeal committee should consider two things:

• Was it established that the accused committed a disfellowshipping offense?
• Did the accused demonstrate repentance commensurate with the gravity of his wrongdoing at the time of the hearing with the judicial committee?

I will one time more quote the report of the judicial committee that was given to the appeal committee (Ref. 4)

GN [Nygård] sent a message saying that she possibly was guilty of porneia. On the background of conversations with her, a judicial committee is formed, and the members were RA, TGU, and KS (CO: coordinator).

GN states that she had made an appointment with a brother from Nittedal to eat together. Later in the evening, they went to the hotel room that the brother had rented for the occasion. More alcohol was consumed, and they embraced each other. On the basis of her words, she does not remember what had happened. GN falls asleep and wakes up naked. They have breakfast the next day, and they depart. They also have some contact on the telephone in the days after the dinner.

The opinion of GN is that because she does not remember anything, she is not guilty of porneia. The committee asks if she feels that she has been raped or has been sexually abused, something that she consistently denies. GN states that they spoke about the episode the next day, and as she says, “everyone can make errors.” GN and the brother from Nittedal evidently are not enemies. This situation has not created a tense relationship between them. They still have contact and speak with each other by telephone. GN calls the man from which she is separated some days after the meeting with the judicial committee, and she says that he is free to marry again. Both GN and the brother from Nittedal are separated at this time but are not free to marry again.

In the report from the judicial committee meeting, there is no information of which sin Nygård is supposed to have committed, and therefore, it is not established that Nygård is guilty of wrongdoing that may lead to disfellowshipping. Neither is there any information regarding whether Nygård regretted anything.

Nygård did not give any new information to the appeal committee. How can we know that? An important reason why the members of the judicial committee are present when the appeal committee is considering the case is that they will notify the appeal committee if the accused one says something different to the appeal committee compared with what he said to the judicial committee. The Elders’ Handbook chapter 17, point 6 says:

lf the judicial committee or the accused believes that earlier testimony or evidence is being changed, this can be stated following the presentation of evidence that was allegedly altered.

Nygård’s advocate asked KS if he was present at the meeting of the appeal committee, and KS confirmed that he was. Then was the following exchange:

DA: do you remember what Gry said [to the appeal committee]?

KS: Yes, she expressed herself in the same way then, as she did to us. The appeal committee must hear her account, and then they consider the case — as she did with us, from A to Z.

DA: She told everything about oral sex and the other things?

KS: I cannot remember all the details, but I…The case is that she gives her account for us, and then she gives the same account for the appeal committee. Whether all details were expressed in the same way, I cannot remember.

The judicial committee did not object to anything Nygård told the appeal committee. Because of the report of the judicial committee, and because Nygård did not make a clear and unambiguous confession, the appeal committee should have annulled the disfellowshipping since the above mentioned two criteria for confirming a disfellowshipping, as stipulated in the Elders’ Handbook chapter 17, point 7, were not met.

The account of RA in the District Court

As I now analyze the accounts of three committee members in the District Court, we must keep in mind that videos of these accounts were shown in the Court of Appeal. What did the appeal committee do? The exchange between the advocate of Jehovah’s Witnesses (R) and the member of the appeal committee RA illuminates to some extent the considerations of the appeal committee.

R: Perhaps we should start from the beginning; can you give an explanation regarding the appeal committee.

RA: Yes.

R: Do that.

RA: Yes, I will tell how we handled the case.

R: Yes.

RA: From the beginning?

R: Please do that and explain something about it.

RA: Well, we used what the Bible says about “sexual immorality” as our point of departure — this was the issue of the case. Can I give an example from the Bible?

R: Yes

RA: Do you want that? 1 Thessalonians 4: 3 says:  “For this is the will of God that you should be holy and abstain from sexual immorality.” This is one of the many passages showing that Jehovah God does not accept this in the Christian congregation. Based on this, the appeal committee should consider whether the handling of the case by the judicial committee was correct? If it accorded with the Bible and the attitude of Gry and possibly if she regretted her actions.

At first, we prayed to Jehovah, as we always do in such cases. We started by considering the guidelines of the Bible and by considering the basis for the case. Then we asked Gry some questions in connection with her view of the case and her account of the case. And we hope that she feels that she could give a free account, so to speak. And we asked about her attitude, her possible regrets — how that would be expressed.

And the conclusion, after we had discussed the case and prayed to Jehovah, was that we… We came to the same conclusion as the original committee. That was a sketch of the situation.

R: Yes, that was a fine account. Can you tell us what Nygård entrusted the committee with?

RA: Again, it is difficult to remember the details. But what I remember is that, yes.. She told about a dinner at a hotel, where they ate and drank alcohol, and they went to the room in the hotel together. There they were intimate, and they ended up in bed. Then she stated that she fell asleep, as I previously mentioned.

R: Ok.

RA: That is basically what I remember.

R: Do you remember… You said intimate details. Can you elucidate that?

RA: Only as I remember, they kissed and went to bed. And then Gry fell asleep and does not remember what happened after that.

R: Yes, OK. Did she tell what happened after she woke up?

RA: I do not remember that.

R: You said, apart from that…

RA: But what I remember may be that…We asked if they had had any contact after this — the two of them. And we understood that they had — a relatively cordial relationship.

R: Yes. OK.

RA: I will also add what was the basis for our consideration of the case. Gry’s description of what happened indicated or suggested that she had some complicity in the act of sexual immorality before she fell asleep. That she answered no to the question about rape was the reason why it was quite clear that she, to some degree, participated or was in compliance.

I will now analyze RAs account in the District Court. In the last point that is quoted, RA says that her own description shows that “she had some complicity in the act of sexual immorality.” I will ask, “To which action of sexual immorality does RA refer”? Nygård denies both that she and the man kissed and that they lay down in the bed together. But even if that is true, such does not constitute sexual immorality (porneia), as defined in The Book for Elders. If two persons who are married to different mates kiss each other, that is a violation of Bible principles. But it is not porneia.

RA also says that “she had some complicity,” but what does that mean? What percentage of complicity did RA have in mind? This is a vague description. The nature of the sexual immorality is not described, and to say that “she had some complicity” in an undefined action makes it impossible to understand what RA means. In connection with the expressions “she contributed to some degree or was in compliance” I will again ask, “In which action did she “to some degree” participate? And with what “was she in compliance”?

The actions that RA ascribes to Nygård to show her guilt of sexual immorality, are very far from the requirements of proof called for in the Elders’ Handbook of two eyewitnesses or a clear and unambiguous confession.

RA shows that Nygård was disfellowshipped because of sexual immorality without specifying which of her actions constituted sexual immorality. The basis for her guilt, according to RA, was that she “to some degree participated or was in compliance,” with the aforementioned undefined sexual immorality.

The account of TG in the District Court

Ref. 18 says:

Nygård fell asleep, and she woke up without clothes. According to KS, Nygård stated that she and the man had breakfast together before they went home as friends.

Nygård denies that she had breakfast with the man the next morning. And she has stated that she bought some food from a shop on her way home. Her information that she woke up at 11:30 coincides with this because at this point there is no breakfast at the hotel. However, the important point here is that KS confirms that Nygård had informed them that she fell asleep in the evening and did not wake up before the next day.

TG was a member of the appeal committee and the following exchange between him and Nygård’s advocate occurred:

DA: OK. I may have misunderstood. Did you say that Gry woke up when he did something sexually to her? Is that correctly understood?

TG: Yes.

DA: So the reason why she woke up is that he did something to her? 

TG: Yes

DA: Did you ask what he did to her?

TG: Excuse me?

DA: Did you ask what…Which sexual action he performed? Was that clear? Did anyone ask about that?

TG: I am a little uncertain; I think I remember that it was oral sex.

DA: Mm. Then you mentioned that this must have been an unpleasant event for Gry. Why?

TG: Yes, she… It is clear that a… One can imagine that… That it was not.. Waking up when such a thing happens.

DA: Do we agree that it was an unpleasant event? Do you think that it was something in which she complied? The sexual event?

TG: Yes, even though she at the outset woke up when it happened, something of which she had no control, so… When she first realized what it was— then it seemed to be…Absolutely… something she liked in a way. It was no problem for her even though…

DA: But you recently said that it was an unpleasant event?  

TG: Waking up from it, yes.

DA: But after she woke up, she liked it. I do not understand the… It does not match…

The judge stopped the exchange and says that DA can continue.

DA: Eh, you said that… I got the impression that — the reaction after it happened is important. For example, that she did not leave. Do you think that if you are exposed to an unpleasant sexual event, that one instinctively leaves the place anyway?

TG: I think this is the most natural reaction if someone does something that is against your will. Such actions should normally be based on agreement. If there is no agreement, it must be viewed as abuse, something that she denied when she was asked how she felt and experienced it.

DA: (…)

TG: That we cannot interpret in another way that it was not in the category rape.  

DA: This means that… You think that if someone is abused, the natural thing to do is to leave the place?

TG: Absolutely.

DA: Mm… What if a person has experienced abuse previously in her life? What if she has been exposed to abuse over a long period of time?

D: Well, first of all, these are claims that have not been proven, so this is quite hypothetical.

DA: It is written in the letter of appeal.

D: Yes, but still, it is a person who claims this. No proof has been given that this is a real situation.

I will now analyze what TG said in the District Court. The main point in TG’s account is that Nygård woke up because the man did something sexual to her. TG is not certain which kind of sexual action the man did, but he believes that it was oral sex. Then he says that it must have been an unpleasant experience to wake up because the man was having oral sex with her. Then follows a surprising comment. He says that what the man did was pleasant for her. She accepted it, and therefore she is an accomplice of sexual immorality.

How does he know that what the man did was pleasant for her and that she accepted it? TG argues that there are two incidents that show that she liked what the man did. One is that if she had not been an accomplice in the sexual immorality, then she would have left the hotel immediately after she woke up due to the man performing oral sex on her. The second is that when she got the question if she had been raped, she answered No.

There are several weaknesses in the conclusions TG draw. Even if a woman is sexually abused, there can be several reasons why she does not leave the place immediately. The woman can be completely paralyzed by the bad action. Or if she, over a period, has been traumatized by a man, she does not have the strength to act and stop him. This is something Nygård’s advocate alludes to in connection with Nygård.

There can be different reasons why Nygård answers No to the question about rape. As I already have shown, the primary reason was that she did not want to report the man to the police. However, because she consistently says that he had oral sex with her while she was sleeping, she, in reality, says that she had been raped, even though she does not use the word “rape.”

The account of TGU in the District Court

TGU was a member of the judicial committee, and I will now present a part of his exchange with the advocate of Jehovah’s Witnesses (R) and with the advocate of Nygård (DA).

R: Ok… Then you were with Nygård. Can you tell…? What did she confide to you at the meeting?

TGU: At the meeting, Nygård stated that…She was invited to Oslo by a friend. They had dinner together and drank wine. He had booked a room at a hotel, because when he… The few times he is in Oslo, he books a hotel room because it is difficult with the transport back to his home. As mentioned, they had a good time, was eating and drinking wine, as I said. And when they…After dinner, they went to the room at the hotel. I have been told that they embraced and kissed each other. Gry was tired, she said. So she lay down to have a power nap…And then, she woke up when the man was lying on top of her.

R: So they say that they lay down in the bed together. Was that before or after she fell asleep?

TGU: Eh…Yes, they lay down on the bed and had that power nap, but…Or, it was she who took the power nap…We asked her if she had been raped… but she denied that.

R: Did Nygård say that she had done something wrong?

TGU: She expressed that in the text message she sent. She spoke about immorality or porneia.

R: Do you know… Did she say something about it at the meeting?

TGU: Yes, she gave an explanation at the meeting.. about it eh… and confirmed it then.

…..

R: How did you view the information Nygård gave you?

TGU: Our view was that biblical principles had been violated.

….

R: So which conclusion did you reach?

TGU: …Our conclusion was that we would disfellowship her from the congregation.

R: You mentioned that you made a consideration of…Did you consider the concrete action that she reported to you as porneia?…

TGU: Yes, our view was that it was about porneia…

R: Yes… Are you uncertain that this was a correct decision and it fell under porneia?

TGU: No, I am not.

DA: Yes… You said something about embracing. What do you mean by that?

TGU: I do not put another meaning in it than the one Gry said, that they embraced and kissed, and yes…

DA: Embraced and kissed?

TGU: [Nodding] That was what we were told…

DA: She used the word “embraced”?

TGU: Yes, she used that word.

DA: And then they lay down on the bed?

TGU: Yes

DA: Are you certain that this was what she said?

TGU: Yes

DA: And you said that she woke up with someone on top of her?

TGU: Mm, that was what she said.

DA: Are you certain that this was what she stated?

TGU: Yes.

DA: Did that not cause you to… did not alarm bells go off for you? When she said it…that she woke up because one was on top of her?

TGU: I took… I accepted her words when she said it, and I have told you here. That was the reason why we asked about rape. But she denied that.

DA: So how… When she denies rape. How do you then view the situation when one wakes up with someone is on top of her?

TGU: How I viewed it?

DA: What had happened?

TGU: I did not view it otherwise than that she said that she had experienced that.

DA: Mm, but that did not sound… Well, do you think that if someone wakes up with another person on top of her, is that not an indication of rape?

TGU: [Shaking his head] I have no comment to that.

DA: No comment?

TGU: No, I do not want to speculate. I only want to tell you exactly what Gry told us.

DA: Mm, I only ask you to make your evaluation.

TGU: Yes

DA: (…)

TGU: But the whole… Gry’s whole story, when she told it the way she told it to us, we all agreed to evaluate in the same way in the committee.

DA: What did you discuss in connection with what you have said, that she woke up with someone on her top? When you discussed it, how did you view it?

TGU: We considered all things that had been presented in the case and discussed it in a good way. On the basis of her expression and what had been revealed in the case, we felt we had quite a clear picture of what had happened.

DA: Yes. What I ask about now, which meaning did it have for you that she woke up with someone on top of her? Did you not consider this, or did you explain…?

TGU: No, we saw everything that happened at the hotel room and everything she explained, that porneia and sexual immorality had been performed.

DA: Which is concrete immorality… what is immoral in this (…)?

TGU: All sexual contact between persons who are not married to each other.

DA: Yes, that is the general definition.

TGU: Yes

DA: But in this case, what is the concrete sin or wrongdoing?

TGU: An intercourse.

DA: An intercourse?

TGU: Mm

DA: Did she say that they had intercourse?

TGU: No, but she was… She stated that she was without clothes or partially without clothes and that some things had happened — that she herself called immorality or porneia — the words she used.

DA: But did she say anything about intercourse, to make that clear? Did she use that word?

TGU: She used the word “porneia”

DA: She did not use the word “intercourse”?

TGU: No, I do not remember that she used the word “intercourse.”

DA: Did she say to you or to you all that something had happened while she was sleeping?

TGU: No, I cannot remember that.

DA: Do you remember that oral sex was mentioned?

TGU : No.

……..

DA: Yes, but now I ask you what she confessed. She stated many things that had happened, but what did she confess?

TGU: She confessed that she had spent the night at a hotel with another man than the one with whom she was married. Eh… And she also used the word porneia.

DA: Did she say that this was voluntary?

TGU: She did not say that it was not voluntary.

DA: Did you ask her if it was voluntary?

TGU: I… No… No, I cannot remember that… I… No… I do not remember – it is two years since it happened.

I will now analyze the account of TGU in the District Court:

This account is quite different from the accounts of the other three committee members. He is the only one who says that Nygård woke up because a man was on top of her, and he says that there was sexual intercourse. But he is not willing to say that because the man was on top of her, that the man was guilty of rape, and he dodges the advocate’s questions about that.

He says that he remembers things that clearly cannot be true, as I will show below. But he does not remember the two most important things that the sexual immorality was oral sex, and that Nygård stated that this happened while she was sleeping.

He said that Nygård confessed that she was guilty of porneia. But when the advocate asked which concrete act of porneia Nygård confessed, he cannot answer. Several times he says that Nygård used the word porneia, but he cannot remember whether the committee members asked whether Nygård voluntarily had taken part in porneia, or whether it was the man who was guilty of porneia.

He also says that Nygård told the committee that she woke up with the man on top of her. But the other two members of the judicial committee and the three members of the appeal committee do not remember that, and the report of the judicial committee does not mention it.

The majority of the court has the following comment to the account of TGU (Ref. 20):

The member of the judicial committee, TGU, explained to the court that the concrete sin, in this case, was sexual intercourse. When he was questioned about why he believed that sexual intercourse had occurred, he answered that Nygård had not said that they had sexual intercourse, but that she had explained that she was partly or wholly without clothes, and the things that she described as immorality or “porneia” had occurred,  He could not remember that she was sleeping during the sexual relations or that oral sex had been mentioned.

There are now four different explanations regarding what happened at Hotel Plaza:

• KS, who was a member of the judicial committee, claims that the two text messages from Nygård, saying that she was uncertain whether she had stepped over the border of porneia, show that she is guilty of porneia. Whether she was an accomplice of the mentioned oral sex or not was not considered by the committee. He also said that she was disfellowshipped because she spent the night at the hotel and the things that happened there, without any further explanation when she asked. 
• TGU, who was a member of the judicial committee, claims that Nygård woke up because a man was on her top, and the sexual immorality of which she was guilty was sexual intercourse, after she woke up.
• RA, who was a member of the appeal committee, claims that Nygård “to some degree” was guilty of sexual immorality because of what happened before she fell asleep.
• TG, who was a member of the appeal committee, claims that Nygård was guilty of sexual immorality because she woke up when the man had oral sex with her, and “it seemed to be…something she liked in a way.” Thus, the sexual immorality happened after she woke up.

Two of the versions say that Nygård, by her free will, participated in the oral sex performed by the man — though at different times, before she fell asleep and after she woke up, respectively. The third version says that she, by her free will, participated in sexual intercourse after she woke up. The fourth says that the two text messages of Nygård were a confession that she was guilty of porneia. But he and the other two members of the judicial committee did not consider whether Nygård was an accomplice of the oral sex. At least three of these accounts must be false. But do we have data that can help us find out if there is anything true in these four versions?

All four committee members claim that they build on what Nygård said to the judicial committee and the appeal committee. But it is obvious that Nygård cannot have said all the contradictory things that the committee members told the District Court. However, there are two lines of proof that can cut through the versions in order to find the truth. First, we have the report of the judicial committee, and second, we have the words of KS that Nygård said the same to the appeal committee that she said to the judicial committee. This is confirmed by the fact that the members of the judicial committee were present at the meeting with the appeal committee, and they did not say that Nygård said something different to the appeal committee from what she said to the judicial committee. Their duty would be to point that out if that had been the case.

Let us now analyze the proofs. The judicial committee says:

On the basis of what GN says, she does not remember anything of what happened. GN falls asleep, and she wakes up naked. They eat breakfast the next day and they return home.

In the exchange with Nygård’s advocate, KS says:

And afterward, when she wakes up naked in the bed the next day.

The point here is that the report and KS confirm that when Nygård has said that when she fell asleep, she did not wake up until the next day.

The judicial committee decided to disfellowship Nygård from the congregation, and the committee’s report, which was written seven days after the meeting with Nygård, is supposed to show why the committee decided to disfellowship Nygård. We must therefore assume that the report shows the reasons why Nygård was disfellowshipped.

Therefore, when the report says that Nygård told the committee that she fell asleep and did not wake up before the next day, this is a true account of what Nygård said. When we know that Nygård gave the same account to the appeal committee that she gave to the judicial committee, we must draw the conclusion that TG’s claim that Nygård woke up in the night when the man had oral sex with her, that she liked it and therefore is guilty of sexual immorality, cannot be based on what Nygård said to the judicial committee and the appeal committee.

We have the same situation with TGU, who was a member of the judicial committee. He claims that Nygård woke up in the night because a man was on top of her and that they had sexual intercourse with her permission. If Nygård had told the judicial committee the events that TG and TGU reported to the District Court, they would, of course, have written about it in the report —that would have been their duty. And that would have been indisputable evidence that Nygård was guilty of porneia.

How can we view the account that RA gave to the District Court? He claims that Nygård and the man kissed each other and that they went to bed together. And he says that “Gry’s description of what happened indicated or suggested that she had some complicity in the act of sexual immorality before she fell asleep.”

The words of RA are contradicted by the written report of the judicial committee, and by the fact that Nygård gave the same testimony to the appeal committee that she gave the judicial committee. The only “morally negative” actions in the report are the claims that Nygård and the man drank wine together at his room and that they embraced. It is clear that if the committee had been told by Nygård, at the time the report was written, that she and the man had kissed each other and went to bed together, that would have been important evidence suggesting that Nygård might have been guilty of porneia, and therefore, it most certainly would have been included in the report. And because Nygård gave the same testimony to the appeal committee that she gave to the judicial committee, the account of RA must either have been conjured up in his own brain, or it must have a third party as its source.

The testimony of KS is different from the three others. He and the two other members of the judicial committee had not even explored the issue of whether Nygård was an accomplice in the oral sex performed by the man. From the perspective of KS, the reason Nygård was guilty of porneia was the two text messages that she sent, where she wrote that she was uncertain whether she had stepped over the border of porneia and that she “for safety’s sake” wanted to speak with an elder. This is what KS views as a confession of porneia.

KS also said: “Yes, they drank alcohol, and there has also been, as I mentioned earlier, kissing and caressing. She also said that there was oral sex.” Again, we must draw the conclusion that his reference to kissing and caressing could not have been based on what Nygård said. In that case, it would have been included in the written report of the judicial committee.

But what can we say about the words in the report of the judicial committee that Nygård and the man drank alcohol in this room and embraced? Nygård denies that this happened and that she had said this. However, I have already mentioned above that the report was written seven days after the meeting with Nygård, and so it is likely that a third party, probably an elder from the Nittedal congregation, mentioned these points to one of the elders in the judicial committee.

Table 1a The contradictory statements regarding what happened at Hotel Plaza

KS	The text messages Nygård sent are a confession of sexual immorality. What Nygård told the judicial committee (which is not specified) confirms this. He also said that she was disfellowshipped because she spent the night in the hotel and the things that happened there, without any further explanation when she asked.
TGU	Nygård fell asleep on the bed of the man, and she woke up when he was on top of her. By her free will, they had sexual intercourse — after she woke up.
TG	Nygård woke up in the night when the man performed oral sex on her. She liked it, and therefore she participated in the sexual immorality — after she woke up.
RA	Nygård and the man kissed each other and went to bed together. Therefore Nygård “to some degree” is guilty of sexual immorality —before she fell asleep.

The majority of the Court of Appeal has described how fluid the presentation of evidence in both committees have been (Ref. 20, 21):

What kind of sexual relations that were performed, whether Nygård most of the time or the whole time slept during the sexual relation, and whether she agreed with it, seems not to have been discussed during the meeting in the judicial committee, or was something that the members of the committee refused to consider.

Because of the few cases of disfellowshipping in the congregation — and the relatively few members of the congregation — the majority assumes that TGU would have remembered if the point mentioned above had been discussed in an adequate way at the meeting. That this has not been the case, is supported by the account of KS that the judicial committee would not go into details. The result of this, according to the view of the majority, is that the members of the committees have used selective samples of facts and/or imagined “facts” as the basis for the decision of disfellowshipping.

There are also other differences in the accounts of the members of the judicial committee and the appeal committee, indicating the members have shown little interest in getting an understanding of details that could be important for the issue of disfellowshipping. There are, for example, different explanations of what happened before and after Nygård was sleeping. But these differences do not seem to be based on her account — which we must use as a basis because it has been consistent all the way. In this connection, it is strange that there are different accounts as to whether Nygård woke up because of the sexual relationship or whether she woke up later in the day when it was over, and the man told her about it.

I would like to point out that Nygård, both in the District Court and in the Court of Appeal, said that she went to the room of the man to get her coat and then go home. She has denied that they consumed alcohol after they came to his room and that she and the man kissed each other and were intimate. She has said that she lay down on the bed and did not wake up before 11:30 the next day.

That she fell asleep and did not know what happened to her may seem strange or suspicious to some. However, Nygård has the chronic fatigue syndrome ME, and this sickness is different in different persons. A friend of mine who got this sickness was in bed for a full year. The condition of other ME patients may change every day. Some days they have much strength and other days they are completely exhausted and can sleep for 20 hours or more. The sickness of Nygård can explain both why she felt compelled to seize that opportunity to lie down in a readily available bed and why she did not wake up when the man performed oral sex on her, as well as that she slept from the evening and to 11:30 the next day.

I will now look at the issue in the light of the Elders’ Handbook. It is absolutely clear that what happened both in the judicial committee and the appeal committee is a violation of the procedures for the handling of cases that are found in the Elders’ Handbook because:

• Because there was no proof that Nygård was guilty of porneia, a judicial committee should not have been formed.
• Nygård was not told before the meeting with the judicial committee which concrete sin she was supposed to have done. This is required so the person can prepare for the meeting and may have witnesses for her innocence.
• The judicial committee did not find any proof (two eyewitnesses or a clear and unambiguous confession) that Nygård was guilty in sexual immorality, according to the report of the judicial committee. But they presented imagined and contradictory accounts of what happened, which Nygård denied.
• The basis for the decision that Nygård is guilty of sexual immorality is “an overall consideration of all the parts of her account.” This is a clear violation of the requirement of The Book for Elders and the Bible that two or three eyewitnesses of at least one sinful action, or a clear and unambiguous confession, are necessary to judge one guilty.
• The judicial committee did not tell Nygård which action or actions they decided she had done that was included in the concept porneia, and for which she was disfellowshipped.
• When she did not have ‘works indicating repentance’ in connection with the imagined sin the committee decided that she had done, but which the committee did not tell her, they disfellowshipped her.
• The report of the judicial committee did not present proof to the appeal committee that Nygård was guilty of sexual immorality or that she did not express regret for her actions. The appeal committee supported the decision of disfellowshipping on the basis of biased speculations that she was guilty of porneia.

I will now return to the words of the Supreme Court as to what a court can consider in connection with a religious matter — in this case, a disfellowshipping:

• If the case has great social importance for the plaintiff, the following points can be considered:

1. Is the decision based on clearly wrong data?
2. Are the procedural laws and by-laws of the religious denomination followed?
3. Is the plaintiff’s fundamental security under the law set aside and violated?

The majority of the Court of Appeal could not consider whether the decision of disfellowshipping was based “on clearly wrong data.” The reason is that it is expressed that Nygård was disfellowshipped because she was guilty of porneia. But the committees have not pointed out which action Nygård has done that constitutes porneia. Because the consideration of what is included in porneia, and whether Nygård was guilty of this, is a religious issue, it is outside the jurisdiction of the court.

However, because I know the Governing Body’s definition of porneia, and I also know the procedures for handling cases of Jehovah’s Witnesses, I am in a position to consider whether the decision is built on clearly wrong data or not. For an action to be viewed as porneia, a person must by his or her free will participate in sexual intercourse, oral sex, anal sex, or the manipulation of the genitals of another person, says the Governing Body.

Point 1 a: One member of the judicial committee, KS, has said that consent or non-consent by Nygård has not been considered by the judicial committee. The consequence of this is that there is no basis for the disfellowshipping of Nygård because of porneia.

But what about the words in the report from the judicial committee that the two “embraced each other”? Nygård denies this, and there are no witnesses. If this happened, it is possible that it was the man who took the initiative and that Nygård did not participate. In such a case, the man could have told the elders in Nittedal about it, and they, in turn, could have told the elders of the judicial committee about it. But even if they did ‘embrace each other’, this is not porneia.

Neither the report from the judicial committee nor the account of any of the witnesses has given proof that Nygård is guilty of any action that can be included in the definition of porneia that is found in the elders’ Handbook. Therefore, it is clear that the decision of disfellowshipping Nygård is, in fact, based on “clearly wrong data”.

Point 1b: The  Elders’ Handbook says that the duty of the judicial committee is to find out whether there is proof (confession or two eyewitnesses) of wrongdoing that can lead to disfellowshipping. And if there is such proof, the judicial committee must consider whether the person regrets his or her action. The judicial committee has not pointed to any action of porneia of which Nygård was guilty, and, therefore, she cannot show regret for something she does not know and has not been made aware of.

The duty of the appeal committee is to find out whether the judicial committee has presented proof of wrongdoing, and if so, did the person express regret at the meeting with the judicial committee. The accounts by the members of the appeal committee in the District Court show that the appeal committee has not performed their duty in assessing these things in accordance with the Elders1 Handbook.

This means that neither the judicial committee nor the appeal committee has followed the procedures for the handling of cases and the by-laws of the religious denomination.

Point 1c: The majority of the Court of Appeal has concluded that Nygård’s security under the law has been put aside, and this is certain. The judicial committee has not considered if Nygård was an accomplice of the mentioned oral sex, and she has not been informed of which concrete sin she has been disfellowshipped. This means that she cannot be reinstated in the congregation, which requires that she expresses regret for her actions. But she cannot express regret for something she has supposedly done when she does not know what it is.

Since reinstatement requires regret, the committees demand, in reality, that she must admit to committing a serious sin, which she denies. It is absolutely certain that Nygård’s security under the law has been set aside and violated.

The actions of the judicial committee and the appeal committee show that serious errors have been made in connection with the disfellowshipping of Nygård. 1)    The committees have based their decision of disfellowshipping on “an overall consideration of all the parts of her account.” This is a violation of the requirement of the Elders’ Handbook that there must be two or three eyewitnesses of at least one sin, or a clear and unambiguous confession, to declare someone guilty. 2)   None of the committees have presented proof that Nygård is guilty of porneia according to its definition in the  Elders’ Handbook. Therefore, disfellowshipping is based on a clearly wrong basis. 3)    That none of the committees have presented proof of porneia and have not said anything about whether Nygård has felt regret or not, shows that none of the committees have followed the procedures for the handling of cases or the by-laws of the religious denomination. 4)    Nygård has not been informed about which action she is supposed to have done that led to her disfellowshipping. Therefore, she has no possibility of being reinstated because that requires an expression of regret. And she cannot express regret for an action she does not know about and has not done. Therefore, Nygård’s security under the law has been set aside and broken.

THE WORK OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE AND THE APPEAL COMMITTEE IN THE LIGHT OF THE BIBLE

In 1971, the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses was established, and in 1972, the elder arrangement was introduced in the congregations all over the world. The Governing Body led the worldwide organization, and the groups of elders led the congregations. The circuit overseers, who were the representatives of the Governing Body, lost in 1972 all their power, and the bodies of elders exercised a relatively independent power over the congregations.[1] The bodies of elders were encouraged to make their own decisions to a great degree independent of the Governing Body.

After some time, the circuit overseers got more and more power. And as time went by, more and more power was transferred from the bodies of elders to the Governing Body.[2] This transference of power was completed in the 21st century. Today, the eight men on the Governing Body have dictatorial power; they have all power over the teaching, the assets, and the money of Jehovah’s Witnesses

The members of the Governing Body claim that they are appointed by Jehovah “to give spiritual food at the right time”, which means that they have the right to interpret the Bible on behalf of all Jehovah’s Witnesses. Everything they say and write must be accepted and obeyed. If a Witness privately or publicly expresses disagreement with the Governing Body, he or she may be disfellowshipped.

The dictatorial position of the Governing Body also influences the issue we now are discussing, namely, disfellowshipping from the congregations. It is a paradox that none of the members of the Governing Body can read the biblical languages of Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic, and yet still maintain that they have the sole right to interpret the Bible on behalf of all Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Their lack of knowledge due to this lexical handicap is clearly visible when we look at the basis for exclusions — disfellowshipping. Greek words that refer to actions are treated in an amateurish way and contrary to the rules of lexical semantics when they are used as the basis for disfellowshipping.[3] This is also the case with the word porneia, which is in the focus in connection with the disfellowshipping of Nygård.

On this website, I discuss in detail the 46 actions that can lead to exclusion from the congregation that are found in the Elders’ Handbook, and I show that 35 of these were made up and introduced by the Governing Body and do not have any support in the Bible.[4]

Sexual immorality (porneia) as a reason for disfellowshipping

In connection with sexual immorality (porneia) the Elders’ Handbook refers to 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10 where the word pornos occurs. The book implies that a member of the congregation can be disfellowshipped by committing one singular act of sexual immorality (porneia). But this is wrong! A person cannot be disfellowshipped for performing one singular sexually immoral act, according to the text of the Bible. But a person can be disfellowshipped for being a sexually immoral person. So, it is not wicked actions that can lead to disfellowshipping but wicked personalities. The present members of the Governing Body do not understand the difference between doing and being. I will elucidate this.

In order to understand what Paul meant when he wrote about disfellowshipping, we need to note that the ten Greek words that are connected with disfellowshipping are nouns and not verbs. Verbs express actions, while nouns express designations and characteristics.

Nine of the ten words I am discussing are verbal nouns, which are nouns that are derived from verbs. These express the action of the verb in a nominal way, on the basis of the meaning of the nouns. The last word is harpax (“one who is robbing others”), it is an adjective that is substantivized and therefore also functions as a verbal noun.  Examples of English verbal nouns are “speaker” from “speak” and “rider” from “ride.”

The verbal noun and the substantivized adjective have a particular function that can be expressed by the Latin words nomen agentis, which “is a word that is derived from another word denoting an action, and that identifies an entity that does that action.”[5] The Greek noun alieus (“fisherman”) is, for example, derived from the verb alieuō (“to fish”). A fisherman is not a person who has been fishing one, two, or three times. But a fisherman is a person whose occupation is fishing.

The Greek noun kleptēs (“thief”) is derived from the verb kleptō (“to steal”). Judas Iscariot did not merely commit an act of stealing but was a thief “because he used to steal the money put in it [the money box]” (John 12:6 NWT13). The important point here is that the verbal nouns in 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10 do not refer to actions that are done one, two, or three times. But they refer to persons who are permeated by these actions, persons whose personalities are now identified with these wicked actions.

This is shown by the revised Norwegian (above), Danish (in the middle), and Swedish (below) New World Translation:

⁹ Vet dere ikke at de som gjør urett ikke skal arve Guds rike? Ikke bli villedet. De som praktiserer seksuell umoral, [those who are practicing sexual immorality] de som tilber avguder, de som er utro mot ektefellen sin, menn som praktiserer homoseksuelle handlinger [men who are practicing homosexual actions] eller lar seg bruke til dette.

⁹  Er I ikke klar over at uretfærdige mennesker ikke vil komme til at arve Guds rige? Lad jer ikke vildlede. De der lever et seksuelt umoralsk liv [those who are living a sexually immoral life], tilbeder afguder eller begår ægteskabsbrud,  mænd der lader sig bruge til homoseksuelle handlinger, mænd der lever som homoseksuelle [men who are living as homosexuals].

⁹  Vet ni inte att orättfärdiga människor inte ska ärva Guds rike? Bli inte vilseledda. De som lever ett sexuellt omoraliskt liv [those who are living a sexually immoral life], de som tillber avgudar, de som är otrogna mot sin äktenskapspartner, män som utövar homosexualitet [men who are practicing homosexuality]. eller underkastar sig sådant.

The English NWT13 is not so explicit as the Scandinavian translations. But the expression “those who are sexually immoral” implies that the reference is not to one or a few actions but to what these people are. And the expression “men who practice homosexuality” clearly refers to many actions that continue.

⁹  Or do you not know that unrighteous people will not inherit God’s Kingdom? Do not be misled. Those who are sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, men who submit to homosexual acts, men who practice homosexuality.

I will now present a quotation showing that the leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses 60 years ago understood that only those who were permeated by wicked actions should be disfellowshipped. The Watchtower of July 1, 1963, page 411, says:

Therefore, the ones who are hardened in wrongdoing are the ones who are disfellowshiped. It is where serious violations of Jehovah’s righteous requirements have become a practice that this measure is taken. First John 3:4 states: “Everyone who practices sin is also practicing lawlessness.” So dedicated Christians who become practicers of lawlessness in the Christian congregation today are disfellowshiped.

I also present a quotation indicating that those who were members of the Governing Body 40 years ago understood the difference between being permeated by a wicked action and doing a wicked action one or a few times. The Watchtower of May 1, 1983, page 8, says regarding the word “drunkards” in 1 Corinthians 6:10:

First, it should be noted that there is a difference between being unwittingly overtaken by drinking too much on one occasion and being a drunkard—making it a practice to become intoxicated.

The Elders’ Handbook from 2019 shows that the members of the Governing Body today do not understand that the Bible lists only eleven disfellowshipping offenses and that only those who are permeated by one of these deserve to be disfellowshipped.

Let us look at Nygård in the light of the discussion above. The only act that is porneia, as the word is defined in the Elders’ Handbook, is the oral sex that was performed on Nygård at Hotel Plaza. Only one of the members of the two committees has concluded that Nygård agreed with this action. The other actions where Nygård was guilty of porneia, according to the members of the committees, are vague and undefined. And the accounts of the elders of what happened are contradictory. None of the accounts point to actions Nygård is supposed to have done that the Elders’ Handbook defines as porneia.

But suppose that Nygård had agreed to sexual intercourse together with the man in his hotel room, how should we look at that? In that case, Nygård would have been guilty of a single act of porneia. But would she have been “one who is practicing sexual immorality”, “one who is hardened in wrongdoing”, which are the characteristics of those who deserve to be disfellowshipped? Absolutely not! Even if she had sexual intercourse with the man two or three times, it could not be said that she has been practicing sexual immorality and is “hardened in wrongdoing.”

And this is the core of the issue. Before having dinner with the man at hotel Plaza, Nygård has never been guilty of sexual immorality, and there is no proof (confession or two witnesses) that Nygård was guilty of porneia at Hotel Plaza. And even if she had been guilty of porneia at this hotel, it would be contrary to Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10 to disfellowship her because she would not be “one who is practicing sexual immorality.” Therefore, everything that the judicial committee and the appeal committee have done in the case has been contrary to the Bible.

Different explanations of what is included in the word porneia

I have already mentioned that the members of the Governing Body do not know the original languages of the Bible and that their treatment of Greek words are amateurish and often wrong. The problem for Jehovah’s Witnesses is that this has resulted in their security under the law being set aside and violated. Tens of thousands of Witnesses have been disfellowshipped from their congregations because of the lack of knowledge of the members of the Governing Body.

What is included in the Greek word porneia has several times been changed by the Governing Body, and when the members of the Governing Body with their lack of Bible knowledge have added a new meaning to porneia, the consequence is that a great number of Witnesses have been disfellowshipped in tandem with this new meaning.

According to the Greek part of the Bible, the word porneia refers to only three different actions:

• Sexual intercourse between a married person and one with whom he or she is not married. (Matthew 5:32)
• Sexual intercourse between two persons who are not married to each other. (1 Corinthians 7:1, 2)
• Sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex. (Judas 7)

Below I give a short description of how the view of the Governing Body has changed regarding what is included in the word porneia.

1945: A sexual relationship between two that are not married to each other.

1969: A sexual relationship between a human and an animal is not porneia. But this is a disfellowshipping offense.

1970: The word porneia can possibly include a sexual relationship between homosexual persons.

1972, January: The word  porneia does not include a sexual relationship between homosexual persons.

1972, November: The word porneia includes sexual relations between homosexual persons.

1974: Oral sex and anal sex between marriage mates are porneia.

1978: Oral sex and anal sex between marriage mates are not porneia.

1983: the manipulating of another person’s genital organs is porneia.

2018: Intimate contact with the clothes on between the bodies of persons who are not married to each other is porneia. One example is a lapdance.

The different viewpoints of the members of the Governing Body are, at each time, the law for Jehovah’s Witnesses. In 1974, for example, the Governing Body introduced a new definition of porneia. Oral sex and anal sex between married persons were porneia. Because of this new view, many marriages were dissolved, and Witnesses were disfellowshipped because of their sexual relations between them and their mates — yes, for “porneia” inside their marriages. This created great problems and much suffering for men, women, and children.

In 1978, there was a retraction. The members of the Governing Body admitted that they were wrong, and they wrote that oral sex and anal sex were not porneia, and were no longer a reason for divorce. How the sexual relations between marriage mates should occur was nothing that the Governing Body could meddle with. This was a matter that each married couple must decide.

But then, in 1983, there was a partial retraction of the retraction. Yes, the Governing Body had the right to once again meddle in the sexual relationship of married couples. Oral sex and anal sex are abhorrent actions, and those who did this would be disfellowshipped. But such actions between married mates were not included in porneia and, therefore, would not be a reason for divorce.

In the case against Nygård, one of the members of the judicial committee mentioned the new definition of porneia from 2018, that intimacy of persons who were fully clothed and who were not married to each other, could be porneia. But no proof that Nygård was guilty of this were presented.

The Governing Body’s lack of knowledge of the original languages of the Bible, their amateurish treatment of Greek words, and their ever-shifting view of the meaning of these words have resulted in the disfellowshipping of tens of thousands of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

[1]. I was circuit overseer at that time, and the other circuit overseers and I got a letter saying that from now on we had no power over the congregations. We were now viewed as traveling pioneers (fulltime servants).

[2]. I give a description of this in my book My Beloved Religion — And The Governing Body, second edition, pages 132-137.

[3]. The book My Beloved Religion — And the Governing Body, second edition, pages 218-240 gives examples of a wrong understanding of Greek words by the Governing Body.

[4]. A detailed discussion of the word  porneia is found in the article “Sexual immorality (porneia)” in the category “The eleven disfellowshipping offenses.”

[5]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_noun.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court has shown that persons who feel that they wrongly have been disfellowshipped from a religious denomination can ask the court to consider the case.

The majority in the Borgarting Court of Appeal has decided that the case raised by Gry Nygård against the Ski congregation for the invalidation of her disfellowshipping can be considered by the court. The minority of the court disagrees with this.

The majority of the court has found that the handling of the case in the judicial committee and the appeal committee has been unclear and that Nygård’s security under the law has been set aside and violated. The committees have not given proof that Nygård has committed a serious sin, and they have not informed Nygård on the basis of which sin she is supposed to have done that she is disfellowshipped. The judgment of the majority of the court is that the decision of the Ski congregation to disfellowship Nygård is invalid.

Neither the judicial committee nor the appeal committee has followed the procedure for the handling of cases that are described in the Elders’ Handbook. The committees have not presented proof that Nygård is guilty of porneia, and they have not considered whether she regrets anything, which is the requirement of the Elders’ Handbook.

The committees have also failed from the view of the Bible. As mentioned, they have not told Nygård which of her actions constituted porneia. But even if Nygård had been guilty of porneia in this particular case, she would not have been among those who “practice sexual immorality,” which is the requirement for disfellowshipping according to 1 Corinthians 6:9.