One principal issue in the court case between Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Norwegian state is whether the treatment of resigned members like disfellowshipped members is a violation of the law that anyone can freely resign from a religion without any coersion.
The evidence shows that the witnesses have consciously tried to mislead the court by lying to the court by saying:
-
The Governing Body and the elders do not tell the members to cut the contact with disfellowshipped and resigned ones. But the conscience of each member decides how much contact he or she will have with disfellowshipped and resigned members.
-
The elders do not interfere in these decisions of the Witnesses, and nobody is punished if he or she has contact with disfellowshipped or resigned persons.
My interpretation of the evidence is that the leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses on purpose have tried to mislead the Court of Appeals. I present this evidence, so the readers can consider if they reach the same interpretation.
The attorney Anders Ryssdal has received his information from the leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses. There is no reason to believe that Ryssdal and his co-workers have tried to mislead the Court of Appeals.
The case in the Court of Appeals in Oslo between February 3rd and 14th 2025 is very important both for Jehovah’s Witnesses in Norway and in other countries. If the decision of the court confirms the loss of the registration and state subsidies, it is almost certain that the Witnesses will loose their registration in other countries as well. The case is very important, and the Witnesses have prepared for it from January 2024 when they lost the case in the District Court.
JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES CAN LIE WHEN TELLING THE TRUTH CAN HARM THEM
In the article «The alternative reality and the Governing Body» (https://mybelovedreligion.no/2025/01/22/the-alternative-reality-and-the-governing-body/) I show that the members of the Governing Body portray an artificial reality and saying that this is the real reality. The way of handling truth and lies in connection with the treating of disfellowshipped and resigned (disassociated) persons resembles the artificial reality because the literature of the Watchtower tells two things that are diametrically opposed.
Insight on the Scriptures, volume 2, page 244, defines «lie in the following way:
LIE The opposite of truth. Lying generally involves saying something false to a person who is entitled to know the truth and doing so with the intent to deceive or to injure him or another person.
The Watchtower of February 1, 2007, page 4, says, “Jehovah, the Creator, is ‘the God of truth.’ His word is truth; he cannot lie, and he condemns lying and liars.” The Awake! magazine of October 8, 1987, page 19, shows that there is no difference between so-called “white lies” and “lies.” God also hates white lies.
However, The Watchtower of November 15, 2004, page 28, had an article that drew different conclusions. We read:
The faithful witness does not commit perjury when testifying. His testimony is not tainted with lies. However, this does not mean that he is under obligation to give full information to those who may want to bring harm to Jehovah’s people in some way. The patriarchs Abraham and Isaac withheld facts from some who did not worship Jehovah. (Genesis 12:10-19; 20:1-18; 26:1-10) Rahab of Jericho misdirected the king’s men. (Joshua 2:1-7) Jesus Christ himself refrained from divulging total information when doing so would have caused needless harm. (John 7:1-10) He said: “Do not give what is holy to dogs, neither throw your pearls before swine.” Why not? So that “they may never . . . turn around and rip you open.”—Matthew 7:6.
Here we see an expression of the alternative reality because the Witnesses define a lie differently from what all other people do. The first part shows that faithful Witnesses never lie. But the second part modifies what the first part says. Here we read that the servants of God is not “under obligation to give full information” to people who may bring harm on the people of God.
These words do not in themselves authorize the servants of God to tell lies in particular situations. Christians are persecuted in many lands, and if a Christian is arrested and pressured to identify other Christians, he may be quiet and not say anything. In this way he can abstain from giving full information. But if he says something, that must be the truth, according to the word of God.
What is problematic in the last part of the quotation, are the references to passages in the Bible justifying withholding information. Let us look at Joshua 2:1-7:
1 Then Joshua the son of Nun sent two men out secretly from Shitʹtimas spies, saying: “Go, take a look at the land and Jerʹi·cho.” So they went and came to the house of a prostitute woman whose name was Raʹhab, and they took up lodging there. 2 In time it was said to the king of Jerʹi·cho: “Look! Men from the sons of Israel have come in here tonight to search out the land.” 3 At that the king of Jerʹi·cho sent to Raʹhab, saying: “Bring out the men that came to you, that have come into your house, for it is to search out all the land that they have come.”
4 Meantime the woman took the two men and concealed them. And she proceeded to say: “Yes, the men did come to me, and I did not know from where they were. 5 And it came about at the closing of the gate by dark that the men went out. I just do not know where the men have gone. Chase after them quickly, for YOU will overtake them.” 6 (She, though, had taken them up to the roof, and she kept them out of sight among stalks of flax laid in rows for her upon the roof.) 7 And the men chased after them in the direction of the Jordan at the fords, and they shut the gate immediately after those chasing after them had gone out.
How can we understand this account in relation to lie and truth? What Rahab did was to lie. She knew what the truth was, but she said something else. Her motive was that the servants of God should not be harmed. But a good motive does not justify a lie.
When the quotation says that the people of God are not obliged to give full information, and the reference to justify this, is the example of Rahab, the only conclusion to draw is that Christians can lie in order to spare God’s people from harm. But that definitely contradicts the word of God.
PREPARING THE GROUND FOR MISLEADING THE COURT OF APPEALS
The contents of the campaign to lie is as follows: The Governing Body and the elders do not tell the Witnesses to cut off the contact with disfellowshipped and resigned persons. Each Witness will, on the basis of of his or her conscience decide how much or how little contact he or she will have with disfellowshipped and resigned persons. Because each Witness decides how much he or she will have with disfellowshipped and resigned persons, the community of Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot be accused coersing the members not to resign.
This campaign of misinformation started immediately after the court case in January 2024.
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE LITERATURE AND VIDEOS OF THE WITNESSES
The members of the Governing Body claim that they have been chosen by God to be a government for Jehovah’s Witnesses. When they write something, they are led by God, and when they publish something, this is exactly the kind of material God wants his servants on the earth to read at that particular moment. This is called “food at the right time”. (Matthew 24:45) This is very close to claiming that the literature of the Watchtower Society is inspired by God.
What is expected of the individual Witnesses as to how they shall view this literature? We read in The Watchtower of February 2022, page 6:
15 As the end of this system of things draws near, we need to trust in Jehovah’s way of doing things as never before. Why? During the great tribulation, we may receive instructions that seem strange, impractical, or illogical. Of course, Jehovah will not speak to us personally. He will likely provide direction through his appointed representatives. That will hardly be the time to second-guess the direction or to view it with skepticism, wondering, ‘Is this really coming from Jehovah, or are the responsible brothers acting on their own?’ How will you fare during that crucial time in human history? The answer might be indicated by how you view theocratic direction now. If you trust the direction we receive today and readily obey, you will likely do the same during the great tribulation.—Luke 16:10.
This quotation shows that the Witnesses must believe everything that comes from the Governing Body, even when they do not understand it. How will this work out? The book for Elders is created like a Law-book, and it is also viewed as a Law-book. It tells the elders what they shall do. The Watchtower does not contain so many laws. But everything that is written in this magazine and in the other literature are laws, even when these things are not formed as laws.
I give one example of something that happened during the Corona pandemic showing that everyone must follow everything that the Governing Body writes:
In a country outside Norway, there was a couple who had been Jehovah’s Witnesses for more than 40 years, and the man was an elder. When the pandemic started, the Governing Body sent a letter to the congregations telling their view of the Corona vaccine and telling the Witnesses what to do. The mentioned couple were scientists, and they had worked with vaccines for several years.
They immediately saw the dangers with the instruction the Governing Body had written, and they realized the health and life of the Witnesses could be at stake. They contacted the world headquarters in the USA several times by telephone and sent scientific articles showing possible dangers of the instructions of the Governing Body.
A letter had been sent to the elders that if anyone expressed disagreement with the Governing Body’s view of the vaccine, they could be disfellowshipped. Instead of contacting the couple, the brothers at the headquarters instructed the elders in the couple’s congregation to muzzle the couple. If they spoke with anyone about the vaccine, they would be disfellowshipped.
After this, the couple did not speak about the vaccine. But they were not welcome in the congregation because they were not vaccinated. They were not disfellowshipped, but they were frozen out of the congregation. And after the pandemic ended, almost no one has contacted them.
This shows the dictatorial power of the Governing Body. Everyone who disagrees with the Governing Body risk being disfellowshipped, even if the disagreement only relates to a medical issue.[1]
The Watchtower of august 2024 presented some small changes as to how disfellowshipped persons should be treated. The Governing Body now allowed a Witness to invite a disfellowhipped person to a meeting — this was previously forbidden. If the disfellowshipped one came to the meeting, the one inviting him was now allowed to say ashort greeting to him — that was previously forbidden. After the words about giving a short greeting, the text says:
However, we would not have an extended conversation or socialize with the individual.
In accordance with the training the witnesses have received, the meaning of these words are: “It is forbidden to have an extended conversation with the excluded one and socialize with him.” The witnesses carefully look for small nuances in the text of the literature, and follow these slavishly.
The purpose of the videos is to teach and to motivate. We read on jw.org about videos that are made in connection with Bible studies with persons who are interested in the Bible:
The purpose of the videos is to teach and to motivate. We read on jw.org about videos that ar made for Bible studies with persons who are interested in the Bible:
We have four Bible study videos for use in the ministry. For what purpose was each one designed??
…
Although each video was designed for a particular purpose, any of them may be shown or sent to people when appropriate. Publishers are encouraged to become well-acquainted with and make good use of them in the ministry.[2]
The Watchtower of October 2018 says that the videos are tools that can motivate people. There are videos both for children and for adults, and they are made to motivate children and adults to follow the laws of the Governing Body.
THE VIDEO ABOUT THE TREATMENT OF DISFELLOWSHIPPED FAMILY MEMBERS THAT HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM JW.ORG
In 2016, district assemblies with the theme “Be loyal to Jehovah” were held. At this assembly, the video “Loyally Uphold Jehovah’s Judgments—Shun Unrepentant Wrongdoers” was shown. The wideo shows a young girl named Sonja Ericsson who has been disfellowshipped. An important point of the video was to show how her parents and Sonja reacted. With reference to her parents Sonja said:
They [her parents] knew that if they associated with me, even a little, the small dose of association might have satisfied me. It could have made me think that there was no need to return to Jehovah.
This video was shown in the district court in 2024, in order to show that there should be no contact between Witnesses and family members that have been disfellowshipped, not even with the parents and their daughter. As a part of the preparation to mislead the Court of Appeals this video was removed from jw.org. This happened a short time after the court case in January 2024.
In the Court of Appeals, Kåre sæterhaug, who is one of the leaders of the Witnesses, was asked to comment on this video that was shown. His agenda, to which I will return, was that the Governing Body and the elders do not tell the Witnesses to shun disfellowshipped persons. But the Christian conscience of each Witness will decide how much or how little contact he or she will have with disfellowshipped and disassociated persons — but this is a lie.
The following exchange occurred between the counsel of the state (C) and Sæterhaug (S), according to notes from a listener:
C: What is the message in this video do you think?
S: Well, it is a situation about a family in this video, and we see how the family chose to handle the situation. We see a grown up daughter behave exactly in the way she wants. And this she freely does.
C: Yes, but with a cost?
S: Yes.
C: But parents are told to cut the contact with those who move from the home?
S: We do not urge («oppfordre») anyone to cut all contact. This is an example of how one family handles the situation. But this is not arule that all Jehovah’s Witnesses need to follow.
All who knows Jehovah’s Witnesses know that Sæterhaug lied on purpose, because:
- Videos are not made for entertainment but for teaching and for motivating people.
- All the talks and other instruction at an assembly, including videos and dramas, are made to show the laws and procedures that all Witnesses must do.
- That Witnesses must shun and totally isolate disfellowshipped and resigned persons have been practiced since 1952, and this is clearly stressed in the Watchtower literature.
This video was shown at this assembly and was later available for several years on jw.org. in order to stress that even the smallest contact between Witnesses and disfellowshipped ones, even between close family members, was forbidden. Sæterhaug explained this away because he did not want to admit that the rule the Governing Body has introduced is that disfellowshipped persons must be totally isolated. Because he knew this, he lied to the court with open eyes. Lying is a disfellowshipping offense according to the rules of the Governing Body.
The presiding judge stressed that lying in court was a violation of the law. Lying can be punished by a fine or by one year in jail. This means that Sæterhaug was a law offender.
[1]. I have received reports from several countries showing that what the members of the Governing Body instructed the Witnesses to do in connection with the Corona-vaccine caused unrest and discussions in many congregations.
[2]. https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/202023097.
A PART OF THE CHANGE EXPRESSED IN THE WATCHTOWER OF AUGUST 2024 IS EXPRESSED IN A CONSCIOUSLY VAGUE LANGUAGE
It was not the treatment of disfellowshipped persons which was the reason for the decision in the District Court. But it was the treatment of those who resigned, that they were treated in the same way as disfellowshipped ones. Because of this, the treatment of disfellowshipped persons was an important issue in the Court of Appeals.
As a part of the preparation to mislead the judges in the Court of Appeals, all expressions regarding the treatment of disfellowshipped persons in the Watchtower literature since the case in the District Court in January 2024 have been expressed in a vague langue. None of these expressions can be used by the attorneys of the state to show that the demand of the Governing Body is that disfellowshipped and resigned ones must be completely isolated.
I refer to two sources, namely, the Watchtower of august 2024 and a letter to the elders from august 2024 telling how they should practice the new things that are expressed in this issue of the Watchtower.
The practice of total isolation has been strictly practiced during the 59 years when I have been a Witness. In order to assure myself that I had not missed anything during the four years when I was disfellowshipped, I asked an elder who has a good knowledge of the situation. Five months ago, he spoke with a friend who is one of the leaders at the branch office in Selters, Germany. This brother said that the Governing Body had not given any new instruction regarding the treatment of disfellowshipped persons, except that which was published in The Watchtower of August 2024.
| One of the leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses at the branch office in Selters, Germany, has confirmed that no new instruction regarding the treatment of disfellowshipped persons has come from the members of the Governing Body, except what is written in The Watchtower of August 2024.
This means that he confirmed that the policy of the Governing Body still was that disfellowshipped and resigned persons should be shunned and totally isolated. We also note that a new way of treating disfellowshipped and disassociated persons has not been taught the members of the congregations before or after August 2024. |
THE TREATMENT OF DISFELLOWSHIPPED ONES ACCORDING TO THE WATCHTOWER OF 2024
If this issue of The Watchtower or another issue had expressed that disfellowshipped ones must be shunned and totally isolated, this could have been used against the Witnesses in court. Therefore, this issue of the Watchtower uses sometimes a vague language:
Page 27 § 4:
The purpose of that announcement is not to humiliate the wrongdoer. Rather, it is made so that the congregation can follow the Scriptural admonition to “stop keeping company” with that person, “not even eating with” him. (1 Cor. 5:9-11)
Page 27 § 5:
Although we do not socialize with him, we should view him as a lost sheep, not a lost cause.
Page 30 § 13
However, the situation is quite different with a person who has been removed from the congre- gation. We “stop keeping company” with that person, “not even eating with such a man.”—1 Cor. 5:11.
Page 30 § 14
Does what we have considered mean that we would completely ignore a person who has been removed from the congregation? Not necessarily. Certainy, we would not socialize with him. But Christians can use their Bible-trained conscience in deciding whether to invite a person who was removed from the congregation—perhaps a relative or some- one they were close to previously—to attend a congregation meeting. What if he attends? In the past, we would not greet such a person. Here again, each Christian needs to use his Bible-trained conscience in this matter. Some may feel comfortable with greeting or welcoming the person to the meeting. However, we would not have an extended conversation or socialize with the individual.
What is the meaning of the expression “not socialize with him”? We find an explanation on page 7, “not to associate with him for social occasions or recreation”. This is the usual understanding of the words “not socialize” — “to do things together in our leisure time for mutual joy.” It is the same Greek word, synanamignymi, that is used for “(not) socialize” in 2 Thessalonians 3:14 and in 1 Corinthians 5:9, 11. Therefore, we must draw the conclusion that synanamignymi has the same meaning both places.
But the members of the Governing Body do not accept this. Their command is that those who have been disfellowshipped must be shunned and totally isolated. When they use the words “not socialize with,” which gives a completely different meaning, they are misleading the readers. This is evidently a conscious decision, to prevent the attorneys to be able to use these words in court to show the demand of total isolation.
| The understanding the readers get of the expression “not socialize with” (1 Corinthians 5:11) is that they must not be together with disfellowshipped ones “for social occasions or recreation.” These use of words mislead the readers. |
Readers of the Watchtower who analyze the text thoroughly, will see that the Governing Body apply two different meanings to synanamignymi in the translation “not socialize”) in 1 Corinthians 5:11 and 2 Thessalonians 3:14. On page 7 we find a comment on 2 Thessalonians 3:14, and we read:
So individual Christians who might have noticed a fellow Christian disobeying inspired counsel would choose to “stop associating with” the disorderly one. Did this mean that the person was treated as someone who was removed from the congregation? No, for Paul added: “Continue admonishing him as a brother.”
Here we see that the members of the Governing Body use “not socialize with” in one meaning when the reference is to those who do not follow the words of Paul in the letter (2 Thessalonians 3) and a completely different meaning with reference to those who are disfelleowshipped (1 Corinthians 5). And the justification for this is meaningless.
If someone did not follow the words of Paul in 2 Thessalonians, the members of the congregations should “continue admonishing him as a brother.” But there is nothing in the context of 1 Corinthians chapter 5 showing that the members of the congregation should not “continue admonishing him as a brother,” a person who had committed serious sins. We also note that the magazine does not show why there is a difference.
| Here we see the basic point: The members of the Governing Body do not want that anyone should be able to refer to something they have written, indicating that disfellowshipped and resigned members must be shunned and totally isolated. Therefore, they use a vague language. |
One place in the magazine, on page 30, we find some words that do not directly say that a disfellowshipped person should be completely isolated, but this is the implication:
14 Does what we have considered mean that we would completely ignore a person who has been removed from the congregation? Not necessarily. Certainly, we would not socialize with him. But Christians can use their Bible-trained conscience in deciding whether to invite a person who was removed from the con- gregation—perhaps a relative or someone they were close to previously—to attend a congregation meeting. What if he attends? In the past, we would not greet such a person. Here again, each Chris- tian needs to use his Bible-trained conscience in this matter. Some may feel comfortable with greeting or welcoming the person to the meeting. However, we would not have an extended conversation or socialize with the individual.
The question is posed: Shall we “completely ignore a person” who has been disfellowshipped? Then it is shown that there is one exception, namely to invite a disfellowshipped one to a meeting and say a short greeting to him if he comes. The words clearly indicate that Christians shall have no contact with disfellowshipped ones, except in the mentioned situastions. This is also seen by the words that it is forbidden to have an extended conversation with the disfellowshipped one. There is no doubt that the mentioned words show that disfellowshipped ones must be isolated — absolutely no contact, no extended conversation, not doing things together.
In August 2024, a letter was sent to all elders, discussing the new things that is expressed in The Watchtower of August 2024 (Form S-39 N-v2024-03). Here we find the usual vague languge:
HOW SHOULD PUBLISHERS TREAT A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE CONGREGATION?
- When a person has been removed from the congregation, we “stop keeping company” with that person,“not even eating with such a man.” (1 Cor. 5:11) However, as explained and demonstrated in the 2024 Governing Body Update #2, if the person attends congrega- tion meetings, a publisher can use his Bible-trained conscience to decide if he will give a simple greeting and welcome the disfellowshipped person to the meeting or not.
- A Christian may also choose to invite a disfellowshipped person—perhaps a relative, a former Bible student, or someone he was close to in the past—to attend a congregation meeting.
We see that there is no answer to the questeion as to how the publishers should treat a person who has been removed from the congregation. There is only a reference to 1 Corinthians 5:11. This cannot be used in court to show the demand of the Governing Body that disfellowshipped and resigned persons should be totally isolated.
THE LEADERS OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES LIE ABOUT HOW DISFELLOWSHIPPED AND RESIGNED PERSONS SHOULD BE TREATED
The congregation members have never been taught and have no idea that they should treat disfellowshipped and resigned members in the way Pedersen and Sæterhaug say they treat these people. Thus, the two leaders are lying. |
As I already have stressed, the main question in the case is whether the fact that those who resign are treated in the same way as disfellowshipped ones is a violation of the law that anyone can resign from a religion without any coersion.
COURT WITNESSES WHO MISLEAD THE COURT
The strategy of the attorneys of Jehovah’s Witnesses based on the information he received from the Witnesses was:
- To show that the way disfellowshipped and resigned persons are treated is harmless, and to explain away that they are shunned and completely isolated.
- To take the responsibility from the Governing Body and the eldsers as to how disfellowshipped and resigned members are treated and put it on the shoulders of each individual congregation member. This is done by saying that it is the conscience of each Witness that decides how much or how little contact he or she shall have with disfellowshipped and resigned ones. This is a complet lie!
The attorney had found Witnesses who have been disfellowshipped but who have been reinstated; and who could tell how good the arrangement of disfellowshipping is, and that they had contact with their witness family while they were disfellowshipped.
One of them gave wrong information to the court. This was a man who had been an elder for 40 years. He told that he had much contact with his disfellowshipped daughter. When he was asked in there was no one in the congregation who told him to stop this contact, he answered No. What he told evidently was the truth. And his motive was to show that the family can have contact with a disfellowshipped relative. But in reality, he misled the court because a witness is both required to tell the truth and not to withhold anything that can be important for the court. He did not tell that as an elder he knew that he violated the demand of the Governing Body when he had contact with his disfellowshipped daughter. His testimony, therefore was an indirect lie.
THE LIES OF JØRGEN PEDERSEN IN THE NEWSPAPER DAGEN
Jørgen Pedersen and Kåre Sæterhaug belongs to the committee at the branch office who directly represent the Governing Body. That both of them lied about the same things, suggest that they had agreed to lie before the case started, or that they had been drilled by others as to how they they should mislead the court. Pedersen lied in an article in a newspaper Dagen, and therefore, ha has not violated any law. But Sæterhaug lied in court, and therefore, he violated the penal code § 224, which means that he may get a fine or a jail sentence of 1 year.
The newspaper Dagen of January 31, 2025 had an article about a couple who had resigned from Jehovah’s Witnesses. The branch office was asked to comment on this, and Jørgen Pedersen responded. We read:
Each member will, on the basis of his personal conscience and circumstances, decide if he will restrict or stop having social contact with former members in the light of the command in 1 Corinthians 5:11-13 “to stop socializing with” such a person. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not force the members of the congregation to do this. The elders in the congregation do not control the personal lives of the members of the congregation, and neither do they control the faith of each witness of Jehovah. Each member of the congregation who restricts or stops his social relationship with one who is disfellowshipped or has disassociated himself from the congregation does this on the basis of his free will and choice, based on his personal religious conscience.
These words express two lies. One is that the Christian conscience of each one decides how much or how little contact he or she will have with disfellowshipped persons. Such information has never been given to the members of the congregations. They have only been taught that disfellowshipped and resigned persons must be shunned and totally isolated.
The truth is that the demand from the Governing Body is that there shall be no contact with the Witnesses and disfellowshipped and resigned persons, except in situations when it is impossible to avoid contact. The following quotations show this:
The Watchtower of January 15, 2013, page 16:
16 The bond between parent and child is so strong that Jehovah used that relationship to illustrate his own love for his people. (Isa. 49:15) It is normal, therefore, to be deeply grieved when a beloved family member leaves Jehovah. “I was devastated,” says one sister whose daughter was disfellowshipped. “I wondered, ‘Why did she leave Jehovah?’ I felt guilty, and I blamed myself.”
19 On the other hand, if you choose the path of resentment toward Jehovah, you will distance yourself from him. Really, what your beloved family member needs to see is your resolute stance to put Jehovah above everything else—including the family bond. So to cope with the situation, be sure to maintain your own spirituality. Do not isolate yourself from your faithful Christian brothers and sisters. (Prov. 18:1) Pour out your feelings to Jehovah in prayer. (Ps. 62:7, 8) Do not look for excuses to associate with a disfellowshipped family member, for example, through e-mail. (1 Cor. 5:11) Stay absorbed in spiritual activities. (1 Cor. 15:58) The sister quoted above says, “I know that I must stay busy in Jehovah’s service and keep myself in a spiritually strong condition so that when my daughter does come back to Jehovah, I will be in a position to help her.”
«Keep Yourselve in God’s Love» (2008, 2014), Large-print Edition, page 267:
We do not have spiritual fellowship with disfellowshipped ones. The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, page 25, stated: « A simple ‘Hello’ to someone can be the first step that develops into a conversation and maybe even a friendship. Would we want to take that first step with a disfellowshipped person?”
Is strict avoidance really necessary? Yes for several reasons.
The video “Loyally Uphold Jehovah’s Judgments—Shun Unrepentant Wrongdoers” from the district assembly «Be loyal to Jehovah»:
They [her parents] knew that if they associated with me, even a little, the small dose of association might have satisfied me. It could have made me think that there was no need to return to Jehovah.
Vakttårnet for oktober 2017, side 16:
17 When a family member is disfellowshipped or he disassociates himself from the congregation, it can feel like the stab of a sword. How can you cope with the pain that this brings?
19 Respect the discipline of Jehovah. His arrangement can bring the best long-term outcome for all, including the wrongdoer, even though the immediate effect is painful. (Read Hebrews 12:11.) For example, Jehovah instructs us to “stop keeping company” with unrepentant wrongdoers. (1 Cor. 5:11-13) Despite our pain of heart, we must avoid normal contact with a disfellowshipped family member by telephone, text messages, letters, e-mails, or social media.
The second lie is: The elders do not urge the Witnesses to shun disfellowshipped ones, and do not carry out control with those who do this.
Boken «Vær hyrder for Guds hjord» (2019), kapittel 12, punkt 17 (1), sier:
- Unnecessary Association With disfellowshipped or Ddisassociated Individuals: Willful, continued, unnecessary association with disfellowshipped or disassociated nonrelatives despite repeated counsel would warrant judicial action.– 18:17b; 1 Cor. 5:11, 13; 2 John 10, 11; lvs pp. 39–40.
The expression “unnecessary association” refers to all association that is not absolutely necessary, as when a Witnes works at the same place as a disfellowshpped one, living in the same household, or when there is a special sitiúation occurreing in the family, such as the opening of a testament.
Contrary to the words of Pedersen the words of book for Elders show that the elders consider what the members of the congregation do. If anyone has contact with a disfellowshipped one, they will ask him to stop with the contact. If he ignors several warnings, he will be disfellowshipped.
THE LIES OF KÅRE SÆTERHAUG IN COURT
The contact between Witnesses and disfellowshipped and resigned ones was focused upon in the examination of Sæterhaug. The following exchange between the attorney of the State (C) and Sæterhaug (S) occurred according to the notes of one listener:
C: According to the Bible, can one have a apiritual relationship with disfellowshipped persons?
S: No. All the activiteies cease. And this is a great part of our lives.
C: But it also is written “and social relationship”
S: No, 1 Corinthians also speaks about the social.
C: If we had removed «spiritual and social» would it be any other form of relationship?
S: No, this is what life is all about. But this is all that the Bible says. But clearly, if one is in the same household, family life will continue.
C: Is it your impression that the suggestions of the Bible are followed?
S: Yes, everyone agrees about these principles. And it is a right and a duty to follow the Bible.
C: So. Jehovah’s Witnesses want to follow what is written here?
S: Yes, we want to follow the Bible.
C: If we are considering a grown up child who is living by himself, what is the general advice regarding contact?
S: The family that is in this situation must think «How can I have a good conscience before God?» Here we must take into account what gives us a good conscience. And this will be different from family to family. We do not say that one thing is more correct than another thing.
C: But does not the Bible say anything about this? Does not the Bible say that we shall not have any contact with one who is disfellowshipped?
S: Yes, but the elders are not the police, we are shepherds. And the congregation does not interfere with what each family does.
The agenda of Sæterhaug is shining through his answers. He dodges the question of whether a grown up child who is disfellowshipped and who has moved out of his home is shunned. And his last two answers are the same as Pedersen said: Each family decides how to treat a disfellowshipped member. There are no rules as to what is right and wrong. And the elders do not interfere with the choices of the families.
In view of the fact that the Governing Body demands that disfellowshipped and resigned persons must be shunned and totally isolated, and that the elders disfellowship witnesses who continue to have contact with disfellowshipped ones, we see the following lies:
- The Bible does not say that a disfellowshipped family member who live outside home should be shunned.
- Each family decides how to treat disfellowshipped members. There are no rules that the families must follow, and what each family decides is accepted by the elders.
- The elders will not interfere with a Witness who continues to have contact with a disfellowshipped person.
| One important point that contradicts the lies of Sæterhaug is that the congregation members have never been taught the way Sæterhaug say that they are treating disfellowshipped and resigned persons. They have never been taught that they can chose how to treat disfellowshipped persons and decide how much contact they will have with them.
They have been taught that disfellowshipped and resigned persons must be shunned, and that continued contact with disfellowshipped persons may lead to disfellowshipping. |
I will again quote the exchange between to counsel of the state and Sæterhaug regarding the video about the treatment of disfellowshipped family members.
C: What is the message in this video do you think?
S: Well, it is a situation about a family in this video, and we see how the family chose to handle the situation. We see a grown up daughter behave exactly in the way she wants. And this she freely does.
C: Yes, but with a cost?
S: Yes.
C: But parents aret old to cut the contact with hose who move from the home?
S: We do not urge («oppfordre») anyone to cut all contact. This is an example of how one family handles the situation. But this is not arule that all Jehovah’s Witnesses need to follow.
Sæterhaug very well knows that this video was shown at the district assembly in 2016 and put on jw.org in order to show thet there should not even be a small contact between the Witnesses and a family member who has been disfellowshipped. When he says that the video only shows what one family did, and that the organization does not urge anyone to cut the contact with disfellowshipped ones, then he lies with open eyes.
The message of Sæterhaug in court is the same as the message of Pedersen. The Governing Body and the elders to not tell anyone to cut the contact with disfellowshipped and resigned ones. Each Christian decides how much or how little contact he or she will have with disfellowshipped ones. These are clear lies!
THE INSTITUTIONALIZED LIES — SINCE THE YEAR 2022
On February 2022, Jehovah’s Witnesses sent a letter of 40 pages to the County Governor, in order to appeal the decision of refusing to give Jehovah’s Witnesses state subsidies. We read:
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 letter was signed by Jørgen Pedersen, and it shows that the lie he expressed in the newspaper Dagen on January 31, 2025, was a systematic lie that he had expressed for the last two years.
On January 12, 2024, Kåre Sæterhaug gave his testimony in the District Court. He said that how much or how little contact a Witness should have with disfellowshipped and disassociated persons was something each one would decide on the basis of his or her own conscience.
Attorney Anders Ryssdal got his information from Pedersen and Sæterhaug, and in his final remarks he repeated the lie as to how disfellowshipped persons should be treated. He said:
There is no procedure that all must follow.
There is nothing in their teaching saying that the Witnesses must cut the contact with disfellowshipped persons.
There is no particular procedure among the Witnesses. But the conscience of each one must decide how much contact he or she will have with disfellowshipped persons.
As we see in the three sections about lies, what Pedersen and Sæterhaug said and wrote are not gaffes on their part. But the lies are well thought out and institutionalized. And they were expressed to mislead the court and the listeners and readers with the motive that Jehovah’s Witnesses should bet back their registration and state subsidies.
CONCLUSION
For me who have lived my whole adult life among Jehovah’s Witnesses, and who have been taught and have taught others that there is no situation that can justify a servant of God to lie, I am deeply shocked to see that what Pedersen and Sæterhaug have done.
I cannot believe that these two representatives of the Governing Body themselves have fabricated their lies that has misled the court. It is very likely that the legal department in the USA is behind this.
In 1995, I was an expert witness in two child custody cases before the Norwegian High Court. In connection with this I was in close contact with the legal department in the USA, and I got a lot of written information that I could use in court. At that time, the instruction was that I would not need to tell everything that I knew in court. But when I told something, it had to be the truth.
Recently, there have been several claims that attorneys for Jehovah’s Witnesses in several cases have misled the courts in order to win the cases. I do not know isf this is true or false. But what I know is that both Pedersen and Sæterdal have been thoroughly drilled by representatives of the legal department regarding what they shall say in court and to the press. So, I have reason to believe that the attempt to mislead the Court of Appeals have been arranged and coordinated by the legal department in the USA.
ADDENDUM
WE MUST DISTINGUISH BETWEEN ORDINARY WITNESSES WHO ARE SINCERE SERVANTS OG GOD AND THE LEADERS WHO USE THEIR DICTATORIAL POWER WITH MUCH HARM FOR ORDINARY WITNESSES
GROWING UP AMONG JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES
(This is an English translation of a Norrwegian article in the newspaper Dagen, February 17, 2025.)
I have read several reports about the testimonies of ex-Witnesses in the court case between Jehovah’s Witnesses and the state. The conclusions generally have been that to grow up among the Witnesses is like growing up in a jail. I have no doubt that all the terrible things they have told about are something they have experienced. Nevertheless, on the basis of my 59 years as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses before I was disfellowshipped, I will say that I cannot think of a better place for å child to grow up than in a family of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
In order to understand how some can experience the situation as very bad, while others cannot think of a better situation, we must distinguish between the dictatorial laws of the Governing Body that has ruined the lives of tens of thousands of Witnesses and the faith and Christian lifestyle of individual Witnesses that enrich their lives.
The Bible has much advice regarding families, and parents who are Jehovah’s Witnesses do their utmost to follow this advice. This means that they spend much time together with their children, they give them the opportunity to play, and the family does many pleasant things together in their leisure time. The parents teach their children about the Bible and many practical issues, and they try to teach the children how they can learn to make their own decisions.
But what about all the rules that many view as very strict? This is particularly the case in connection with the system of disfellowshipping. My assessment is that if the Bible had been followed, more than 90% of those who have been disfellowshipped should not have been disfellowshipped. This is the system that have caused most of the problems that the ex-Witnesses told about in court. This whole system should have been abolished!
However, disfellowshipping has nothing to do with the upbringing of children. Can the system of the Witnesses produce mature intellectual persons? The answer is both Yes and No. In the 1960s, when I became a Witness, this was possible. I received interactive teaching — I myself was a part of the very teaching process. Through the literature of the Watchtower, I learned how to perform deep and detailed studies, and my intellectual curiosity that led to a magister degree and a doctoral degree was awakened on the basis of this literature.[1] This good situation lasted for two decades. But then the Governing Body intervened, and the literature had strong warnings against education, particularly higher education.
In addition to the teaching of the children by the parents, the faith plays a very important role both in the lives of the parents and the children and in the development of the children’s intellect and emotions. In 2017, I was invited to contribute a paper to a scientific congress about Jehovah’s Witnesses in Antwerp, Belgium. Several articles in different publications claimed that there was a high rate of mental illness and deep depression among Jehovah’s Witnesses, and I decided to investigate the issue.
The result was a solid study of 15,000 Witnesses in 15 different countries. I found that the mental health among the Witnesses was much better than in the population at large. The frequency of psychosis among the Witnesses was 35.9% compared with the frequency in the population. The frequency of bipolar disorder was 37.9% and severe depression was 17.7% of the frequency in the population. The frequency of suicide among the Witnesses in Norway for the past 20 years was 36.5% of the frequency in the population. My study was published in “Acta Comparanda Subsidia III The Jehovah’s Witnesses in scholarly perspective: What is new in the scientific study of the movement?” (2017)
What is the reason for the good mental health of the Witnesses? There may be two things going in opposite directions. Many Witnesses are not able to fulfill the hard requirements of the Governing Body. Failing to do this can be detrimental to one’s mental health. What is pulling in the opposite direction is the faith of a person. Knowing that one has something valuable, having a real purpose in life, and knowing that when one dies, there will be a resurrection have an enormous positive impact on a person’s mental health. I have no doubt that it is the faith that is the reason why the Witnesses have a better mental health than most other groups.
The faith is also very important for children who are growing up. Having something to live for, something to look forward to is a great help for a youngster who is growing up and is working to find his own identity. The problem today is that all the demands of the Governing Body have a negative effect on children who are growing up. But the parents cannot be blamed for this situation.
My conclusion is that in spite of the bad effects of the dictatorial power of the Governing Body, and in spite of all the terrible things the witnesses told about in court, there is no better place for a child to grow up than in a family of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
[1]. The Norwegian Magister Degree can be compared to the American Ph.D. The Doctor Artium Degree at the end of the 20th century required two more years of study and is a higher doctoral degree than the Magister Degree.
