Skip to main content

JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES AGAINST THE STATE JANUARY 8-19, 2024

By 24. January 2024Writings

INTRODUCTION 

The court case of Jehovah’s Witnesses versus the State lasted two weeks, (8-19 January 2024). I gave my oral testimony in the case, and after I gave my testimony, I followed the case, including the final arguments of the attorneys. I have a few comments.

The County Governor revoked the registration of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and therefore they did not get 16 million Norwegian kroner (1.7 million US $) for the years 2021, 2022, and 2023. This decision was challenged by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The reasons for the decision of the County Governor were as follows:

  1. Those who disassociate themselves are viewed as and treated like disfellowshipped persons. This is a pressure and a threat against resigning, and this is a violation of the Norwegian law about religious denominations and the Declaration of Human Rights.
  2. Baptized children below 18 years of age can be disfellowshipped. Unbaptized children are not disfellowshipped if they do something wrong. But in this situation, they may be treated in a way that causes psychological stress. These actions are a violation of the rights of children, as it is expressed in Norwegian law and the Declaration of Human Rights.

JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES LIED TO THE COURT

From the beginning, the attorneys of Jehovah’s Witnesses tried to muzzle the attorneys of the State by telling a lie and by using an absurd argument.

The mentioned lie has been told before the court case as well. A letter from the Scandinavian branch office of Jehovah’s Witnesses to the County Governor of Oslo and Viken dated February 17, 2022, said:

On the other hand, those who chose to renounce their spiritual standing as a Jehovah’s Witness by formally resigning will be respected for their decision.  It is up to each one who belongs to the congregation to use their personal religious conscience to decide whether they should limit or completely avoid any contact with such a person.

The truth is that the Governing Body has forbidden all contact with disassociated persons except in two situations (The Watchtower of 1981 and 1986): when they live in the same household as other Witnesses and when the contact is absolutely necessary.  It is a lie that it is the individual Witness who decides how much contact he or she will have with disfellowshipped and disassociated persons.

Kåre Sæterdal is one of the leaders in Norway, and in his testimony, he lied to the court by saying the same thing that is expressed in the quotation. Anders Ryssdal, who was the principal attorney of Jehovah’s Witnesses, said the following regarding the contact between the Witnesses and disassociated persons, with reference to the testimony of Sæterdal:

“There is no established and cemented practice.”

“There is nothing in their teaching requiring that they break the contact with disfellowshipped persons.”

“There is no established practice among the Witnesses, but it is the conscience of each one that decides how much contact he or she will have with disfellowshipped persons.”

 

The reason for these lies is that if each Witness decides how much contact he or she will have with disassociated persons, one cannot argue that there is a pressure and a threat against resigning. Thus, the decision of the County Governor is wrong.

The absurd argument from the attorneys of Jehovah’s Witnesses was: The literature of Jehovah’s Witnesses, including the Shepherd book, are religious texts. The only ones who can interpret these texts are Jehovah’s Witnesses. Therefore, the attorneys for the State cannot use quotations from this literature to show what the practice of Jehovah’s Witnesses is.

I would like to stress that the disfellowshipping procedures of Jehovah’s Witnesses and the issue of shunning disfellowshipped persons were not the issue. Both parties agreed that Jehovah’s Witnesses have the right to make rules regarding disfellowshipping and shunning. But the issue was the shunning of disassociated persons, the disfellowshipping of children, and the treatment of unbaptized publishers.

ADDITION JANUARY 25, 2024

The Norwegian newspaper Vårt Land of January 25, 2024, wrote:

In addition to the Norwegian attorneys, the international organization Association of Jehovah’s Witnesses for the Protection of Religious Freedom was involved as a legal adviser.

This shows that the strategy of trying to block the possibility of the State attorneys quoting from the literature of Jehovah’s Witnesses and of telling lies about how disfellowshipped and disassociated persons are treated did not come from the Scandinavian branch office. But it came from the top of the organization, from the leaders of the organization.

MY ORAL TESTIMONY IN THE COURT  JANUARY 12, 2024

These transcriptions are based on a sound recording of my testimony. I have deleted expressions such as “ah” and “eh.” Sometimes the sound is a little unclear. But the transcriptions, almost word by word, represent what I said in court. All clauses are not complete because this is an oral testimony.

STAT = The attorney of the State.

JW = The attorney of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

 

STAT: Which positions have you had as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses?

RJF: Six months after my baptism, I started as a full-time preacher, and I continued with this for 15 years, until we had to stop because of the health of my wife. I have been a circuit overseer, which is an overseer that visits between 15 and 20 congregations two times a year. I have been a district overseer, which is the keynote speaker of all the circuit assemblies in the country. The last 18 months, I was the teacher of 30 courses for all elders in Norway; each course lasted two weeks.

We settled in Oslo, and I was the presiding overseer and coordinator in the Majorstua congregation for 35 years. I was also a member of the Hospital Liaison Committee in Oslo for 20 years. When I retired, we moved to Stavern, and I was an elder in the Torstrand congregation for ten years, until I was disfellowshipped. I have represented Jehovah’s Witnesses in radio and TV and in an audience with the Norwegian King Olav V.

This is what I had to say…I will add something that is important for me: During the 59 years when I was a Witness before I was disfellowshipped, I have never experienced anything that was bad. It has been a great life. I have experienced many exciting and positive things, and I have learned many things. If I could live my life over again, I would have done exactly the same. I would have been a Witness for Jehovah, done all the things that I have done, but of course, with a few minor adjustments. I still count myself as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, even though my congregation do not accept that.

STAT: Yes, again, we come to that. But a few introductory questions — family relationships, you and your wife.

RJF: My wife passed away almost a year ago.

STAT: Yes. Do you have children?

RJF: No.

STAT: Then to the issue that you were disfellowshipped. What was the reason for that?

RJF: Well, the reason was the big changes inside the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses. When I became a witness 62 years ago, almost all the doctrines of Jehovah’s Witnesses were directly based on the Bible. I assess that today, 90% of the doctrines are based on the Bible. What has happened is that the Governing Body has removed several doctrines and added others. And they have created 200+ laws and regulations that all the Witnesses must follow. Because I have taught students the original languages of the Bible, I know the text well. And I have seen that several of the decisions made by the Governing Body have contradicted the Bible. This has, of course, worried me. But I could not do anything about it.

However, in 2019, a new book for elders was published, Shepherd the Flock of God. When I read this book, I realized that I had to do something. In this book, there were a lot of things that contradicted the text of the Bible, particularly in connection with disfellowshipping. I estimated that if the text of the Bible had been followed, more than 90% of those who had been disfellowshipped, should never have been disfellowshipped. And the way disfellowshipped persons were treated was based on a complete misunderstanding of the Bible. I could not look at this without saying something. So, I wrote a book entitled My Beloved Religion — And The Governing Body.

JUDGE: The judge interrupts in order to get a better sound.

RJF: I wrote the book. And because I wanted the members of the Governing Body to get the chance to consider what I had written, I sent the manuscript to them. I wrote that if they would start to correct things that were against the Bible, I would not publish the book. The answer was no. I published the book, and I was disfellowshipped.

STAT: Yes, and you were…you simply disagreed with the doctrines.

RJF: Yes.

STAT: Did you expect to be disfellowshipped?

RJF: Yes.

STAT: Yes. We need not use more time in this situation. We will return to that later. We are going to talk about disfellowshipping, on a general basis. But before that I want to consider some publications that we have read. You yourself mentioned the Shepherd book. What is the Shepherd book?

RJF: Yes. It is a book that all elders receive. It gives instructions as to what the elders should do in all kinds of situations.

STAT: And it is actively used, or?

RJF: Actively used?

STAT: Yes.

RJF: Yes, yes, yes. All elders have this book, and when the elders must to something, they read in the book, so they are certain that they follow its instructions.

STAT: Yes, when you…you have been a circuit overseer?

RJF: Yes.

STAT: Is that one of the things that is discussed in the book, where they follow the Shepherd book?

RJF: What is your question?

STAT: The circuit overseer.

RJF: Yes, he will also read the Shepherd book, and his duty is to make sure that alle the elders follow this book. This is his most important task when he visits a congregation.

STAT: Yes, as circuit overseer?

RJF: Yes.

STAT: And that is what you have been?

RJF: Yes.

STAT: And then, the book Organized to do Jehovah’s Will. What kind of book is that?

RJF: This is a book all the members get. And it gives an overview of all the different sides of the congregation…that will help all to understand what is going on in the congregation…meetings, the visit of the circuit overseer etc.

RJF: Is it representative for what is happening?

RJF: Yes, it is… and the Witnesses follow it slavishly, as much as they can.

STAT: The Watchtower? Can you say something about The Watchtower?

RJF: It is the main organ of Jehovah’s Witnesses. and they…Most Witnesses have the view that it always contains the truth. Before they read the magazine, they believe that what is written is true.

STAT: Then it has been… We will return to that later. But we have understood that this magazine is published every second week. Is that true?

RJF: Yes…it is a little different…There is one magazine for the public and one for the Witnesses. But every second week, yes.

STAT: What is its function? Why do they have such a magazine?

RJF: One thing is the Watchtower study. The congregation studies one article at a time by questions and answers. The purpose is to encourage everyone to follow the Bible. It has much about Christian attributes, how problems can be solved as Christians. Much weight is put on this.

STAT: How to remain in God’s Love…what kind of book is that?

RJF: It gives an overview about the life in the congregation, we may say. There are two editions of this book. One has much about disfellowshipping and in the other this is deleted. I think they did this because the expressions were too strong.

STAT: Does it mean that it is no longer valid?

RJF: No, it is valid.

STAT: When was it deleted?

RJF: I am not certain in which year that happened. The two editions are almost identical, except for the points about disfellowshipping.

STAT: I have touched this…These publications that we now have discussed. To which degree is it possible to learn from these, not only what Jehovah’s Witnesses teach but also what they do?

RJF: They are easy to understand. They are written in a very simple way, so everyone can understand its text.

STAT: When it is said that several different interpretations are possible. Do you have any thoughts about that?

RJF: This is a very strange expression, I would say. Because they take great care to write in a simple way. Today, the Watchtower…the level of the language is extremely simple, so everyone can understand it. Saying that there can be different interpretations. This is an incredible claim in my eyes.

STAT: Before we start with disfellowshipping, a short subject. What are the characteristics of the life of one of Jehovah’s Witnesses?

RJF: Yes, this is interesting. There are two «flows» that go in different directions. What is so special with Jehovah’s Witnesses is the inner unity they have because they have the same faith. They call each other “brother” and “sister,” and this has an important meaning. They view the congregation as a big family, and all the congregations in the world as a bigger family.

I will illustrate how this works. Some years ago, my wife and I had our vacation by driving our car through several countries. We drove through Germany, the Netherlands, and France. We had one week at the Riviera. Then we drove back through Italy, Austria and Germany. In every place we looked for Jehovah’s Witnesses. They were our family, and we wanted to meet Witnesses from other countries. They were not difficult to find; they offered their magazines on the street and went from house to house. What was so special was that when we met some Witnesses, and we presented us as Witnesses from Norway, a big smile, and we were greeted as their family. We visited some Witnesses, and we had a great evening with persons we did not know — because we had the same faith.

We had our vacation in the USA one year, and we experienced exactly the same. My wife and I followed the same pattern. We lived in Oslo for many years, and we had a great number of visitors from abroad. This special unity as a big family because we have the same faith is difficult to find other places. I would like to add that when many refugees recently came from Ukraine to Norway, Witnesses were present at the asylum receptions to search for those who were Witnesses from Ukraine, so they as quick as possible could get in contact with their brothers and sisters in Norway.

The other «flow» goes in the opposite direction. It has to do with freedom, or rather with lack of freedom. The Governing Body was established in 1971, and the arrangement with a council of elders in each congregation started in 1972. At that time, the council of elders had all power in each congregation (in a positive sense), and the Governing Body had no power over the congregations. There was full freedom for all Witnesses. But then the change started. The Governing Body started to take a part of the power of the councils of elders and give it to themselves. The first time I saw this was in the year 1976. However, we still had great freedom throughout a part of the 20th century.

But in the 21st century, the Governing Body had taken all power away from the councils of elders and given it to themselves. Today, the Governing Body has unlimited power over the teachings, the money in the congregations, and the properties the congregations use. They claim that they are appointed by God to be leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses and to interpret the Bible in behalf of the Witnesses. They have caused the Witnesses to believe that when they publish an article in the Watchtower or a book, this is what God wants his servants to read and study at this particular time. The organization today is very different from the organization when I became a Witness. All the freedom has been taken away.

I will give an example. During the years I have gotten many friends. Some friends are closer than others. Four friends have been particularly close to me. We have worked together for more than 20 years, and experienced many things together. Thus, a strong bond has been created. Last summer I published a book about the Bible. I sent an electronic copy to each of these four and pointed out what the book was about. None of them downloaded the book to read it, and one sent a short text message, telling me that he would not read the book. Because they were not allowed to do so because it was not written by the Governing Body.

Then I borrow an expression from the Jesuits, namely “carcass discipline (kadaverdisiplin).” A carcass cannot oppose anyone or ask questions. And this is the situation among Jehovah’s Witnesses today. The smallest opposition is not tolerated. If a Witness disagrees with the Governing Body, the elders will have one or more serious talks with him. And if he still says that the Governing Bodty is wrong, he will be disfellowshipped. So, the organization today has become autocratic, or using a clearer expression. The organization has become a religious dictatorship.

STAT: I think we must proceed to the issue og disfellowshipping. Then I know…disfellowshipping, what does it mean?

RJF: It means that a Witness is thrown out of the congregation. He loses his family and friends who are Witnesses. they will not greet him or speak with him.

STAT: If we look at the details. What can lead to disfellowshipping?

RJF: There are 48 disfellowshipping offenses. And 37 of these are invented by the Governing Body, I will say. The Bible does not say that they are disfellowshipping offenses. If a Witness sins against one of these one time or several times, a judicial committee will be made, and it consists of three elders. They will consider whether the Witness deserves to be disfellowshipped or not.

And in this situation, the Governing Body has turned a basic judicial principle upside down. It is a principle that a person is innocent until it is proven that he is guilty. No one should need to prove that he is innocent. But that is the situation in connection with a judicial committee. First the elders will find out what he has done. Then he is asked: “How do you view that you have done?” Usually the Witness will say, “I regret what I have done and I have promised myself not to do it again.” The next question is: “Can you prove that you feel regret?” Do you have works that prove that you feel regret?”

And here is the problem. The meeting with the judicial committee will be held one or two weeks after the sin, and during this short time it is difficult to point to works that prove that the Witnesses feels regret. So, the Witness must prove that he is innocent, and innocence means that he feels regret. In many situations…The requirement of the Governing Body is that the members of the committee must be convinced that the Witness feels regret, that he has changed his course, and that he will not do the sin again. If they are not convinced of that, he will be disfellowshipped.

STAT: Before a disfellowshipping… if someone makes something wrong, will he immediately be disfellowshipped?

RJF: No. The purpose of the judicial is to help the sinner. The elders do not convene just to throw the person out of the congregation. They look whether it is possible to restore the sinner. They really want to help the sinner, if that is possible.

STAT: Yes, fine. If a Witness resigns from the congregation, is he then disfellowshipped, or is it something else? What can you say about that?

RJF: “Disassociation” is the expression for “resigning,” and it is an euphemism for disfellowshipping. I will explain. Before 1981, anyone could resign from Jehovah’s Witnesses without any sanctions. In that year, an article in The Watchtower said that from now on all who resigned should be viewed as disfellowshipped persons and be treated like disfellowshipped persons. And the reason was, as the magazine said: “Those who resign do something wrong.”

In 1986, a new article discussing the same subject was published in The Watchtower. It said that those who resigned were a part of Antichrist. The word “antichrist” is used in the letters of John in the Bible, and it refers to those who were the strongest enemies of the Christians. So, those who resign are viewed as enemies of Jehovah’s Witnesses. this is the situation at present.

STAT: We have touched what can lead to disfellowshipping. I am looking for examples, such as violations of moral norms. Which examples do you have?

RJF: if a person has sex with someone to whom he is not married, this is a disfellowshipping offense. However, this is expanded. If a person caresses the body of a person of the other sex, this is a disfellowshipping offense. If someone sends a text with some sexual words to a person of the opposite sex, this is a disfellowshipping offense. And one last thing that has been termed a disfellowshipping offense, is a kind of dance without a partner mimicking sexual movements. This came in 2017, I believe…Lapdance is the expression, this can be a reason for disfellowshipping.

STAT: Can minors who are baptized be disfellowshipped?

RJF: Yes, they can be disfellowshipped. They are viewed as Witnesses, and the age is not important. If the elders believe that he is not showing regret, he will be disfellowshipped. No Witness who feels regret should be disfellowshipped.

STAT: Then I have a question about the age when a person is baptized. Is there any average?

RJF: In recent years, there have been a campaign to baptize children, down to 12 years or even to 10 years. There is no statistics of this. But I have an example. At breakfast at the headquarters in the USA, different information is given. A few years ago, information was given as to the age of full-time servants in the USA. There were 212 full-time servants from 12 years and below, and the two youngest ones were 7 years old. And there were almost 7,000 full-time servants between 12 and 16 years of age. All these were baptized, and it illustrates that baptism can occur very early.

STAT: This was in the USA?

RJF: Yes.

JUDGE: How many members were there in the USA at that time?

RJF: About two million, I think.

STAT: Preparations for baptism. Can you say something about that?

RJF: Three elders will speak with the candidate for baptism at different times. They ask some questions that are written beforehand. The motive is to find out whether the person is mature enough to be baptized. This is a good thing. But these questions can be memorized. So small children can avoid the test of maturity, a maturity they do not have. If a person is 7 years, for example, one is not mature.

STAT: But there are not many persons 7 year olds that are baptized?

RJF: That is true. But The Watchtower have given examples of it, and The Watchtower is the role model for Jehovah’s Witnesses. When it refers to examples of persons 10 years old that have been baptized, this is a model for others to follow. But not many are baptized at this age, at least not in Norway.

STAT: There have been some questions about maturity. What do you think about the process to find the maturity of a person?

RJF: It will vary. But personally, I would not have asked the baptismal questions to someone below 15 years. In Norway, one has to be 18 years old to marry. And it is just as serious to promise God eternal faithfulness. My opinion is that first when a person is in his late teens is he mature enough to be baptized. But there are exceptions.

STAT: Our understanding is that those who are disfellowshipped because of their violation of moral norms and those who resign from the congregations, are treated in the same way.

RJF: Yes, all who have been disfellowshipped and those who have resigned are treated in the same way.

STAT: Can you tell us about this treatment? What is this treatment?

RJF: To be disfellowshipped is an awful experience. One loses family and friends, losing all his network. Everything is lost. There is no one to speak to, no one to get advice from.

Recently I have gotten a firsthand knowledge regarding how disfellowshipped persons experience their disfellowshipping. I have a website with the name «mybelovedreligion». It is popular and has 115,000 followers. Many of these have sent me emails, letters and even contacted me by telephone — from many countries, including Norway. Many of these have been disfellowshipped. They have contacted me to get advice. “What shall we do?” They have no ideas regarding what they shall do.

Others have contacted me because they feel that they have been treated unfairly. They tell about this and ask for advice. The common denominator is that when they were disfellowshipped, they got a mental breakdown, they became depressed, and some got a serious depression. And one more thing. A great number of them considered suicide. But fortunately, it is a long way from considering suicide to actually perform it. But there are some who have committed suicide because they were disfellowshipped.

STAT: There is a difference between those who have been disfellowshipped. What I am after is what happens in the congregation when one is disfellowshipped?

RJF: They are allowed to attend meetings, but no one will talk to them. It is a bad experience to attend a meeting, when everyone turn their backs on you, and no one speaks to you. The person sits in the last row — this is the way. Saying that they are allowed to attend meetings is true. But this experience does not feel good.

STAT: Do they have any contact or meet privately with others in the congregation?

RJF: No, that does not happen.

STAT: So, there is no contact, except that they are allowed to attend meetings?

RJF: I will say something about this — regarding those who have been disfellowshipped or have resigned. The Governing Body has decided that there shall be no contact with those who have been disfellowshipped and have resigned, except in two situations.

One situation is when the disfellowshipped one lives in the same household as other Witnesses. Some contact is necessary. The second situation, as The Watchtower says, is that when it is “absolutely necessary” to have contact. The Watchtower has given some examples of “absolutely necessary”-situations. It may be if there is a judicial question involving the disfellowshipped one and other family members; for example, a deed. Or it may be a situation where the disfellowshipped one works at the same place as other Witnesses. Some contact is necessary. But except for these two situations, the Governing Body has forbidden any contact with disfellowshipped persons and those who have resigned.

STAT: When you were disfellowshipped, was your wife still a Witness?

RJF: Yes,

STAT: So, you lived in the same place?

RJF: Yes. And here I may give an example. She passed away almost a year ago. When she was…Because she was not disfellowshipped, a memorial service for her was held in the Kingdom Hall. I was not there. It was too much for me, in addition to the loss and sorrow I felt for my wife to be at the Kingdom hall experiencing the total silence from all her and my friends that would be there. But there was a sound recording of the program that I heard later in the day.

And one more thing.  Because we are known all over Norway, we had literally several hundred friends. After she passed away, I got seven condolences by an email or a text message, and three of these were from persons who no longer were Jehovah’s Witnesses. So, it illustrates the strictness of the Governing Body’s prohibition of having any contact with disfellowshipped persons — even face to face with death.

STAT: Can you say a few words about the function of disfellowshipping?

RJF: The view is that when a person loses family and friends, the person will be shaken. And he will long for contact with family and friends. Because of this, he will change his course and return to the congregation. This is the purpose. It also supports the view that it is prohibited to have anything to do with a disfellowshipped person. If there is some contact, this is something that destroys the very purpose of the disfellowshipping.

STAT: Yes, and those who resign will experience exactly the same?

RJF: Yes, exactly the same.

STAT: As those who have been disfellowshipped?

RJF: Yes.

STAT: We have several times heard that it is up to each Witness to decide how much contact he or she will have with a disfellowshipped person. Do you have any thoughts about that?

RJF: Yes. Using a colloquival language: this is completely nonsense. As I have said…it is only in the two mentined situations when one can have contact…where it is absolutely necessary. It is not the individual Witness that is deciding this. This has been decided by the Governing Body.

STAT: I think you should elucidate this a little.

RJF: What are you thinking about?  All are completely obedient to the Governing Body. What the Governing Body has decided, everyone will follow that to the last detail. When the Governing Body has decided that there shall be no contact, there will be no contact.

STAT: Is this your experience?

RJF: Absolutely, absolutely! Very few Witnesses violate this decision. We can just look at my situation, I have several hundred friends and no contact.

JUDGE: But in order to consider your time as a Witness. Have you participated in disfellowshipping persons who had violated this piece, as you say, who have had contact with disfellowshipped ones?

RJF: Yes, I have participated in disfellowshipping, yes. In the Majorstua congregation…

JUDGE: Yes, but now we are speaking about those who violate the demand for not having any contact with disfellowshipped persons.

RJF: Those who violate this will be disfellowshipped if they continue with it.

JUDGE: Have you participated in this?

RJF: Yes.

JUDGE: In many instances?

RJF: No, I have not. One will not act quickly. If a person has contact with a disfellowshipped person, the elders will say, “You have to stop this, you are not allowed to do this.” He may do this two times or five times. I think the elders will hesitate to disfellowship him for some time. But if he continues, he will be disfellowshipped. I have participated in this, yes.

JUDGE: But how will they come to know if a person does this. Is it based on his confession?

RJF: No, there are different situations. It is so transparent in a congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses. There is, for example, much family. The elders may be informed in this way.

STAT: Will someone tell the elders about this?

RJF: In a way, there is an informant situation in the congregations. If someone sees a Witness do something seriously wrong, his duty is to approach that person telling him to confess it to the elders. If the sinner does not do this, the other person will tell the elders about the wrong thing that the person did.

STAT: We have spoken about the Shepherd book and brazen conduct — having contact with disfellowshipped ones. Losing privileges in the congregation, that can be one reaction. Then I wonder about privileges in the congregation. What can they be?

RJF: Answering at the Watchtower study, have a talk at the midweek meeting, or even not be allowed to preach. These can be lost, if a Witness does not do something that leads to disfellowshipping, but does something wrong.

STAT: Being an elder, is that a privilege?

RJF: Absolutely.

STAT: Let us go back to the contact with the disfellowshipped one and the family. It is said that family bonds are not broken. What does that mean? Do you have any thoughts?

RJF: That is true. Parents love their children, and children love their parents. Both parts suffer when one is disfellowshipped, and there can be no contact. So, the bonds connected with being of the same blood are not broken. But all other bonds are broken.

STAT: But for a child, a grown up child who do not live in the same household as the parents. Is there any contact between the parents and the child?

RJF: No contact.

STAT: With the exception of the necessary things?

RJF: Yes, these necessary things. However, there is also a situation if the child becomes very ill, and is not able to take care of himself. In such a situation, the parents may consider to take the child home, so the parents can care for him. The family bonds are there, they love each other. But they have been separated because of the disfellowshipping…

STAT: Sickness can be a reason?

RJF: Yes, serious sickness can be a reason. But the situation must be very serious for them to take the child home. But then they do this.

STAT: Unbaptized publishers, they cannot be disfellowshipped?

RJF: No.

STAT: But will they be sanctioned if they violate the rules?

RJF: Yes, that i possible. If they do that, two elders will speak with them. The treatment is the same as in a case of a judicial committee. But it is not called “a judicial committee.” If the unbaptized publisher does not feel regret, at a midweek meeting, the congregation is informed that “NN is no longer accepted as a baptized publisher.” This may have great importance for him. Now he is viewed as a worldly person who is outside the congregation.

And The Watchtower has said that the members of the congregation must be cautious in connection with having to do anything with this person. This means that there should not be any social contact with this person. He will be isolated and frozen out of the congregation, in most congregations.

If the unbaptized publisher feels regret, his position is still not good, particularly if parents instruct their children not to have little or any contact with him. And one elder may even give a talk to the congregation about the sin he has done. And all the members of the congregation will know that this is the sin of the unbaptized publisher. Then the parents can be even more restrictive. Therefore, if an unbaptized publisher does something wrong, he may be partially or fully isolated.

STAT: Is that something you yourself has experienced?

RJF:  Yes, yes, I have seen such situations, yes.

STAT: Then there are some who become inactive. Shortly, what does that mean?

RJF: It means that they stop doing the preaching work. They are still counted as Witnesses. The congregation members greets these persons, are nice to them, and encourage them to start preaching again.

STAT: There is still a possibility that such a person may be disfellowshipped?

RJF: Yes, if he does something wrong, he will be disfellowshipped.

STAT: Then to another subject that is related to something that we have heard in the court proceedings. That relates to the oral testimony of persons who have left Jehovah’s Witnesses. We have heard that we must be cautious with such testimony. Do you have any thoughts about that?

RJF:  It depends on why they have left. If he has left and have a negative view of Jehovah’s Witnesses, that may shine through. That is naturally. But the same is true of the other side as well. If you ask Jehovah’s witnesses about something, they may paint a gloss picture. As I already have mentioned, the inner unity among the Witnesses is excellent. And those who feel that, will express that. So, they may be a little unbalanced in the other direction compared with those who have left by their own free will.

STAT: Can anyone represent Jehovah’s Witnesses to the outside world?

RJF: No. The rule is that if anyone wants to represent Jehovah’s Witnesses, he must speak with the elders. They will speak with the circuit overseer or the branch office to be granted permission. If someone on their own initiative represents Jehovah’s Witnesses, he will not be disfellowshipped, but he will be viewed in a bad light.

STAT: If someone wants to resign, for example, but has not yet resigned; this is only something the person is considering. Then he is in court… saying that he wants to resign, because he has a bad time in his congregation. How will this situation be?

RJF: Saying something is one thing, doing the thing is more serious. I am not sure I am following you. What are you are thinking about?

STAT: If a person in court has said that he wants to resign from Jehovah’s Witnesses. How would that be?

RJF: OK. No. I do not think that necessarily…then the elders would speak with him afterwards and try to help him to see their perspective. The primary task of the elders is to help the members of the congregation, not to punish them.

STAT: To criticize Jehovah’s Witnesses publicly?

RJF:  Yes, this is much more serious. Such a person may be disfellowshipped, as I previously have mentioned. If someone disagrees with the Governing Body, and continues to disagree, he will be disfellowshipped.

STAT: We have also seen that many letters of support for Jehovah’s Witnesses have been sent to the County Governor. Is it normal that Jehovah’s Witnesses contact the authorities in this way?

RJF:  Yes, it is normal. Then they are asked to do this. If the Witnesses is persecuted in one country, the Witnesses are encouraged to write to the authorities. They get the name and address of particular persons of authority, in order to influence the situation. When the County Governor has received many letters, it is evident that the Witnesses in Norway have been encouraged to write to the County Governor.

STAT: You told something about the experience of being disfellowshipped, that a person loses contact with his family etc. Do you know any persons today who wants to resign, but who has not done that?

RJF:  Yes we had a young man in Majorstua. He said: “I want to resign, but I also will keep my friends.” I anwered that he could not do both. “If you want to have your friends, you cannot resign.” Another man I recently have had contact with has an uncle who has many physical problems. He has been an elder, but he has lost his faith. He knows that if he resigns, he will not be allowed to help his uncle. Therefore, he formally is a Witness, even though he does not share the faith. There are many, yes really many who are in a similar situation.

STAT: I have a last question. Massimo Introvigne, is that a name you know?

RJF: Yes. We have had many discussions on the Internet about Jehovah’s Witnesses. He is writing a lot about court cases, and he is not a neutral observer. He is extremely biased in favor of Jehovah’s Witnesses. When Jehovah’s Witnesses lose a case, he uses an exceptionally strong language. He has written about the basis of this case as well, and he has strongly criticized the County Governor for the decisions against Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Then you get questions from the other side.

JW: Furuli. Attorney Ryssdal here. First, I would like to speak about the faith of Jehovah’s Witnesses and their relation to the Bible. Do you agree that they base their faith on the Bible?

RJF:  That they believe in the whole Bible?

JW: Yes.

RJF: Yes. But there is one exception. In recent days, the Governing Body has moved away from this faith. For example, the members refuse to believe in the words of Jesus in Matthew chapter 12, regarding who will get a resurrection. The Witnesses generally believe that the whole Bible is the word of God. But the Governing Body has been moving away from this faith.

JW: That the faith of Jehovah’s Witnesses is based on the Bible, that the Bible is central, you agree with that?

RJF: Absolutely… I have said that 90 % is based on the Bible.

JW: Do Jehovah’s Witnesses encourage each Witness to have a relationship with the Bible?

RJF:  Yes. But this has changed. When I came in, and for many years personal study of the Bible, and the ability to defend the faith with the Bible were strongly stressed. The knowledge of the Bible was great. But today, the knowledge of the Bible among Jehovah’s Witnesses is minimal, because the Witnesses are no longer encouraged to study the Bible.

JW: But they have a special relation to the Bible. Would you say that the view of Jehovah’s Witnesses regarding baptism accords with the Bible?

RJF: Yes, it accords with the Bible, yes.

JW: And what do you feel regarding what they say about important things in the Bible, such as marriage etc? Do this accord with the Bible?

RJF: Yes.

JW: If we go to the documents, there is a letter…we get it on the screen, as you see.

Please look at the following words: «I have been a witness of Jehovah for 59 years, and I have had many duties of trust. My view is that Jehovah’s Witnesses is the only Christian denomination that builds on the Bible. If I get a question, I admonish others to consider becoming a member of this community.” Is this about the same that you said when you started today?

RJF: It seems like that, yes.

JW: Why did you say that even though you have been disfellowshipped?

RJF: Jehovah’s Witnesses is still «my beloved religion». I view myself as a Witness for Jehovah. And if someone asks med, I recommend that they consider becoming one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

JW: In spite of your disagreement regarding the interpretation of different places in the Bible?

RJF: Yes, when 90 % is based on the Bible, this is the best we have in the society today.

JW: I have understood that you are a linguist?

RJF: That is correct. I have studied 12 ancient languages, and I have taught seven of these languages to students at the University of Oslo.

JW: And your disagreement is your linguistic interpretation of the Bible based on these ancient languages?

RJF: No…Yes, you can put it that way. What is a little strange is that none of the nine members of the Governing Body, who is interpreting the Bible in behalf of Jehovah’s witnesses, know these languages. So, they have a handicap. They neither know Greek, nor Aramaic, nor Hebrew. I have written three books about Bible translation. So, it is clear that I use my knowledge of these languages to understand what is written in the Bible.

JW: So, you have a different approach than  99.99.99 % of Jehovah’s Witnesses?

RJF: You can delete the last 99. There are many intellectual people and university people among Jehovah’s Witnesses.

JW: Then I pose another question. We have a text of the Bible. This text we can read aloud, and this can also I do who is not one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Do you agree that to read aloud for yourself and for others is something different from a religious and spiritual expression of a faith?

RJF: To read aloud?

JW: Yes.

RJF: Yes. When I, for example, studied Hebrew with my professor, we read aloud from the Hebrew Bible. And he did not have a faith.

JW: But you had a faith?

RJF:  Yes. My faith was bases on a detailed study of the Bible, and the text had forced me to believe, so to speak.

JW: Yes, and you studied the Bible, and you got a spiritual experience?

RJF: Yes, you can put it that way.

JW: This is the same that I have heard from several other witnesses. That they have had a spiritual experience regarding how the Bible must be understood and the rules that are found there. Will you say that this is a general characteristic of Jehovah’s Witnesses?

RJF: Yes, absolutely. Most witnesses are sincere people who want to serve God, and who do their utmost to live according to the Bible.

JW: You have lived a long life in Jehovah’s Witnesses. But you are also a community person. Would you say that Jehovah’s Witnesses are different than many other religious denominations where the members are not so much involved as the Witnesses?

RJF: Jehovah’s Witnesses differ from all other denominations. Today there are almost none who believe in the whole Bible. You must go to the Bible belt in the USA to find that.

JW: If we now establish this. I would like to…understand better…regarding the Governing Body that you disagree with in connection with the understanding of texts in the Bible. Where do they stay?

RJF: They stay in Warwick in the state of New York. It is a new building…a new headquarter for Jehovah’s Witnesses.

JW: They are Americans…not all of them may be Americans. Have you ever been a member of this body?

RJF: No.

JW: Do you know these members?

RJF: No.

JW: You do not know them?

RJF: Not personally.

JW: No. But do we know anything about their background at all?

RJF: Yes. They have published their life histories in The Watchtower. Therefore, we know, by and large, what their background is.

JW: As far as I know, they are very much involved in the faith. This is a criterion to be there?

RJF: Yes, they are. And evidently, they are sincere persons who believe in what they do.

JW: Do you agree that in this changeable world a religion must have such a supreme body, or?

RJF:  Yes, I fully agree that a worldwide religion must have a leadership. But this leadership must not be dictatorial; it was not dictatorial when I became a Witness. When this leadership is dictatorial, this contradicts the Bible. But a leadership is necessary in order to organize and arrange different things.

JW: Do you agree that the papal chair can give viewpoints in connection with issues of faith to the Catholic congregation in the whole world?

RJF: That it can do that?

JW: Yes.

RJF: It does that.

JW: There is a leadership on the top.

RJF: Yes it is. But the leadership of Jehovah’s Witnesses is much stricter.

JW: Do you agree if we draw the analogy, that with such a leadership at the top…all Catholics in the world…each Catholic may have his own viewpoint regarding important questions. I think about military service, abortion etc?

RJF: They can, but abortion is a difficult question. They can disagree with the Pope without experiencing any sanctions.

JW: What can prevent someone to disagree with what comes from the top among Jehovah’s Witnesses, regarding personal lifestyle?

RJF: It should not be like that. It must be unity based on the Bible. But when any disagreement leads to disfellowshipping, that is wrong.

JW: How many elders are there in Norway, do you know?

RJF: Perhaps 800.

JW: There are more; we heard that yesterday. Some elders may have different viewpoints compared with the viewpoints of others?

RJF: Only rarely as far as religious issues are concerned. They have a submissive and creeping respect for the Governing Body. Just the smallest sound from the Governing Body, and they follow it.

JW: But if they have a case raising questions whether a man from Ringsaker has a life style that violates the life style of the Witnesses that is based on the Bible, this cannot in any degree of reasonableness be decided from the Governing Body in America?

RJF: No. But they have «tentacles» or prolonged arms. The circuit overseers in the first period when I was a Witness had no power at all. Today, they have all power. They are the Governing Body’s prolonged arms. They travel around and check that everything that the Governing Body have decided are implemented.

JW: But the circuit overseers do not participate in a judicial committee… I have not heard about that…

RJF: That they have?

JW: No, I have not heard about that.

RJF: No, there are three elders from the local congregation. However, there may be special cases. When I was a circuit overseer, I was asked by the branch office to be a part of a judicial committee. But this is an exception.

JW: If we assume that Jehovah’s Witnesses is a denomination that is based on the Bible, it is a reasonable view that also the elders, who have these tasks also stick to the Bible.

RJF: This is a reasonable assumption, yes.

JW: If someone in the Governing Body, or secular authorities, for that matter, say that we must ignore something that is written in the Bible, we would not accept that?

RJF: No, we can just consider the question about blood.  We do not accept blood because the Bible prohibits the use of it.

JW: No, right. So, your disagreement, as I have understood, it relates to interpretations of the Bible by the Governing Body. And you wrote a book about that?

RJF: Yes.

JW: Do you know the scriptures that point out the necessity to keep the central doctrines in a faith?

RJF: I am not sure about what you are talking about.

JW: No. I am not an expert.

RJF: Central doctrines…the Bible speaks much about unity. The letters to the Corinthians admonish everyone to be in unity. And in this I agree. But unity must not be achieved at the expense of truth.

JW:  No, I understand that. You have your viewpoints, and we fully resepect that. But your views deviate from what most of what Jehovah’s Witnesses follow.

RJF: Yes.

JW: This concerns the Governing Body…and we have…known that this is based on the elders.

RJF: Yes.

 JW: So, it was not surprising that you were disfellowshipped. It is a clear reason for disfellowshipping, is it not?

RJF: I was not surprised. I knew it would happen.

JW: Luther was banned by the Pope. If a person has another faith, it is not strange that he falls outside.

RJF: You can say that.

JW: Well, I turn to another case …on page 1138. But before that I will say…do you agree that others who also live their lives contrary to Jehovah’s Witnesses, also riesk to be disfellowshipped?

RJF: If I agree with that?

JW: Yes.

RJF: It depends on what it is. If a person contradicts the Bible, the Bible itself says that he should be disfellowshipped, So when the members of the Governing Body go against the words of Jesus in Matthew chapter 12, they deserve to be disfellowshipped.

JW: I am thinking about a particularly sensitive issue in connection with the view in Norway among young people…sexual immorality. This is a central issue for Jehovah’s Witnsses.

RJF: Yes, it is.

JW: If a young person is living in sin, having sex with someone to whom he is not married, that would cause a reaction?

RJF: Yes, this is one of…There are 11 disfellowshipping offenses that are mentioned in the Bible, and this is one of them.

JW: Can you name another according to the Bible?

RJF: Thievery; drunkenness.

JW: Right, How…You have mentioned something interesting because “drunkenness” is written in the Bible. Would you assume that this also includes other kinds of substance abuse? If a person did not get drunk from alcohol, according to your viewpoint, but he used hash or cocaine?

RJF: I will not disagree with…it is the intoxicating effect that Paul is talking about. One can get an intoxicating effect of narcotics. So, I am not against the application of Paul’s words on cocaine and heroin.

JW: This means that the scripture must be interpreted, when there are reasonable assumptions.

RJF: I have mentioned that many things about disfellowshipping is completely misunderstood by the Governing Body. They do not even know the languages. What is related to disfellowshipping is whether a person practices these actions for a long time and refuses to stop. Then he should be disfellowshipped. Among Jehovah’s Witnesses a person may be disfellowshipped when he sins one or two times.

JW: So, it is a question of degree…how early?

RJF: Not only a question of degree. But it is a fundamental question. But the Governing Body does not agree that a person must have practiced the wrong actions for a long time and refuses to stop. Then a person should be disfellowshipped, according to Paul. This is very strict… Today people are disfellowshipped…today people are disfellowshipped for all kinds of reasons

JW: What you say contradicts what other witnesses have said. I must ask you when did you lastly work with disfellowshipping cases?

RJF: Tt can be 12 years ago.[1]

JW: No, no. The motive is to help people. I will mention that…did you disfellowship persons when they came and said that I was at a party, and there I had sex — out with you?

RJF: No, no, the motive is to help people. I will mention that during the 35 years when I was in the Majorstua congregation, it may have been ten disfellowshippings. We were extremely restrictive in this situation because we followed the words of Paul.

JW: This is about the same as we have heard. One will not be immediately disfellowshipped. It is when one does not follow the doctrines. Was it that you also practiced?

RJF: Take for example a thief. If he steals two or five times, that is not necessarily a disfellowshipping offense. But if he is an incorrigible thief, I would participate in disfellowshipping him.

JW: Yes, this is the same that I have heard from many others. Let us go to page 1138. Here is a work before you. Do you recognize this work?[2]

RJF: This is an article from a Congress in Antwerp in Belgium in 2016.

JW: In 2016, right?

RJF: Yes.

JW: It is a big work.

RJF: It was at this congress that I met Introvigne. We were both invited to give a lecture at the congress and contribute a paper. My paper was entitled, “The Mental Health of Jehovah’s Witnesses.”

JW: We have read the abstract before, som that is not necessary. My basic point is that the rate of mental disorders is lower among Jehovah’s Witnesses than in the population at large.

RJF:  Yes, that is true. And it was 15,000 Witnesses that were surveyed. And the same is true with the rate of suicides, it is also lower among Jehovh’s Witnesses than in the population.

JW: Which is great.

RJF: Yes, and this corroborates my own experience among the Witnesses. The Witnesses are a fantastic fine people. Most of them are God-fearing persons who do their utmost to live according to the Bible.

JW: If we go to…you had some comments there, for example on page 1144: “He has a strong personal bias against Jehovah’s Witnesses.” This relates to Jerry Bergman. What was your point of writing this in this context?

RJF: He was one of the biggest critics of Jehovah’s Witnesses. He had written several books and many articles against Jehovah’s Witnesses. The purpose was to…When you write something, you must consider the meaning of others, what the big boys say, and contradict them if you disagree. This is what I tried to do.

JW: If we go to page 1162 we read about Bergman again, “His scholarly work can be questioned because he is an adversary of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and because he presents himself as a psychiatrist, which is not correct.” The first part relates to a question we got from the state, that to trust people who are critical to Jehovah’s Witnesses in your analysis — you are skeptical to those people?

RJF: Not to people but to Bergman. He was an extremist…I could perhaps have elucidated this…I am not skeptical to people who are outside Jehovah’s Witnesses generally. But everyone has a ballast, we have our opinions. This can shine through what we are saying, absolutely. But we cannot because of this write off the truth value in what everyone who have departed from Jehovah’s Witnesses say.

JW: But this is what you consistently have done in this work?

JUDGE:  This you wrote before you came into conflict with Jehovah’s Witnesses?

RJF: That is correct. It was written in 2016, and I was disfellowshipped in 2020.

JW: But it is not only Bergman. There is also a person with the name Wilting on page 150.

RJF: Wilting, he is from Norway.

JW:  My point is that Furuli says the same in this work that we have said. But if it is clear for the judge what we mean, we need not go further. A question to what you experienced…the judicial case. How would you say…You have spoken positively about the life in Jehovah’s Witnesses but negatively about the Governing Body. They are in the USA, So we have no daily contact with the members. How will you say that Jehovah’s Witnesses are in connection with child rearing? You have no children, so we take this reservation, of course.

RJF: This is the best child rearing that exists.

JW: Do the parents annoy and hurt their children?

RJF: What?

JW: Do they hurt their children?

RJF: No, no, no. To the contrary. Most of Jehovah’s Witnesses are excellent parents. They use much time with their children, they speak with their children, they teach them about the Bible, and they give them time to play. I will say that child rearing among Jehovah’s Witnesses is the best we can find anywhere.

JW: And the unbaptized publishers, who often are children, we have understood. Are they treated in a good way?

RJF: By their parents?

JW: Yes.

RJF: Absolutely, to the highest degree.

JW: And what happens if an unbaptized publisher does not want to be an unbaptized publisher any longer, did you say?

RJF: Then he will be viewed as a worldly person and will be isolated and frozen out of the congregation. But there are differences among the congregations.

JW:  Yes, there is a difference, is it not?

RJF: Yes, there is a difference. And it has to do with the elders. Some are extreme; a great number are extreme. But some are balanced.

JW: Have you participated in sanctioning unbaptized publishers in your time as an elder?

RJF: Not sanctioned. If they stop, they are viewed as worldly people. Many parents of children and youngsters will tell their young ones not to have anything to do with such a person. The elders do not do that, but the parents.

JW: But we speak about the congregation. You are a member of the congregation. We have a person who grows up and starts calling at the doors. And then he says, “This is nothing for me; I will rather play football instead.” Have you experienced that the congregation has treated this one in a cold and hard and impersonal way, have looked down and away…?

RJF: No, it is not the elders that are rearing the children. The parents have this responsibility. The elders will always cooperate with the parents if there are some problems with their children.

JW: This contradicts what you said earlier, when you said that the children are treated in a bad way in the congregation.

RJF:  This is because…

JV: We agree that the parents do not treat their children in a bad way. You are sitting there in the religious community. An unbaptized publisher, whom you know was a publisher earlier, comes in. He has stopped because he wanted to play football or play in an orchestra…Have you participated in treating this one in a hard and unpersonal way. Looking away…?

RJF: No, no. The elders do not do that. It is the parents.

JW: But you said the congregtion?

RJF: If a person is an unbaptized publisher, and the congregation is informed that he is no longer an unbaptized publisher, then The Watchtower says that one must be cautious to have anything to do with this person, because now he has turned out to be a worldly person.

JW: The question was if you had participated in this.

RJF: No, I do not have children. The parents of the children are acting in connection with such a person. They instruct the children not to have anything to do with this child. The elders do not do that. If the person comes to the meetings, we speak with him and treat him in a kindly way. The parents instruct the children and not the elders.

JW: If you treat them in a kind way, but the parents do not treat them in a kind way. That sounds strange.

RJF: The elders will treat them in a kindly way, and the adults will treat them in a kindly way. But it is a personal choice if they will have contact with such a person. Generally, the Witnesses shall not have contact with worldly people.

JUDGE: They are concerned about the negative influence their children may get.

RJF That is the point.

JW: So, it is the parents of other children that are instructing them?

RJF: I do not think that the children reacts when someone stops being an unbaptized publisher. It is common that young ones must come before the elders. But the parents are afraid of the negative influence.

JW: You say that Jehovah’s Witnesses have a fantastic good way of rearing children. But at the moment a child stops being an unbaptized publisher, then the parents of other children instruct their children not to have any contact with this one. Is this a good way of child rearing?

RJF: This is not the same as the rearing of children. Other parents have the responsibility for their children. If they feel that that a person may represent bad influence, they tell their children not to have anything to do with this one. This is a good way of child rearing. They do not rear the children of other parents.

JW: No, I have four children. If I should instruct my children to avoid other children because they are not unbaptized publishers, I think that this is not a good way to rear children.

RJF: If you say that to your children? What if the person was using drugs? Would that be a good way to rear children if you told them to have nothing to do with this person?

JW: No, we are speaking of unbaptized publishers who have stopped with this. That is something different.

RJF: Parents rear their children, and not the children of others who are unbaptized publishers.

JUDGE: I have understood the point.

JW: We have spoken about many subjects. But the issue is whether the Witnesses violate the rights of children. I understand the situation in a way that this is not a particular problem among Jehovah’s Witnesses?

RJF:  I cannot interpret the expression  “the violation of the rights of children.” The court must interpret this expression.

JW:  Then to the question of resigning. How is it if someone resigns. Do you put any obstacles in the way of one who wants to resign?

RJF: No. If a person has a weak faith, the elders will try to help him, be kind to him, and invite him to a meal. No obstacles are put before one who will resign. When a person wants to do that, he can do that. But then he knows that he will be treated as one who has been disfellowshipped.

JW:  Yes. But it may be that the elders know nothing about the plans of one to resign. And there he comes. Will that work well?

RJF: Then he will get a certificate. This is the law. He gets this certificate, and then he will be treated as a disfellowshipped person.

JW: I will put my finger on something that probably is a central rule for Jehovah’s Witnesses, namely sexual immorality. Do you agree that this must be interpreted in the light of the situation in the society?

RJF: No.

JW: No. But you said that all sex and immorality are wrong?

RJF: The Bible uses the word porneia, and this is just one thing. This is to have sex with a person with whom you are not married. But the Governing Body has added a number of other things that are viewed as porneia.

JW:  You mentioned lapdance. I consulted Wikipedia (quotats the text) Is it strange that Jehovah’s Witnesses with their view of sex reacts to this?

RJF: On the basis of what the Bible says, it is strange that they react. The Shepherd book says that it need not even be a physical contact between two persons to view it as sexual immorality or porneia.

JW: But here there is contact.

RJF: As mentioned, the only definition of porneia in the Bible is sexual relations between two persons who are not married to each other.

JW: Then I have no more questions. But my colleague Kristiansen has two questions.

JW: You were a circuit overseer. When was that?

RJF: I was a circuit overseer from 1966 to 1972, Then I was a district overseer from 1972 to 1974, and the last 18 months until the autumn 1975 I was the teacher for all the elders in Norway.

JW: I noticed that you said that one can lose privileges, like not be allowed to answer at the meetings.

RJF: Yes, that is possible. The elders decide which privileges one may lose. Not to be allowed to preach is the most extreme, that rarely happens.

JW: But we heard by one Witness yesterday that it is a difference between privileges and restrictions. Can it be that you are confusing those two expressions.

RJF: No. There is a difference between privileges and restrictions. Not to answer at the meetings and have talks are restrictions.

JUDGE:  Then we have reached the end. Thank you, Furuli

[1]. This can be misunderstood. I referred to the time when I lastly was a part of a judicial committee. To form a judicial committee is done by the body of elders, and because I was an elder until I was disfellowshipped in 2020, I have worked with disfellowshipping cases until that year.

[2]. The reference is to my article «The Mental Health of Jehovah’s Witnesses», that was submitted at the Congress about Jehovah’s Witnesses in Antwerp in Belgium in 2016. It was printed in Comparanda Subsidia III.

OVERSKRIFT 3

CONCLUSION

Rolf Furuli

Author Rolf Furuli

More posts by Rolf Furuli

Leave a Reply