COMMENTS ON THE PROCEEDINGS ON THE LAST DAY OF THE CASE BETWEEN JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES AND THE NORWEGIAN STATE IN OSLO 3-14 FEBRUARY 2025
In her final remarks, the attorney of the state, Liv Inger Gjone Gabrielsen, said that judicial committees often pose detailed questions to youngsters who have been intimate with another person. The attorney of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Anders Ryssdal, strongly objected to this and stated that “we deny that such questioning has occurred.” And he said that those who have reported such intimate questions may have a wrong memory.
The elder, Kåre Sæterhaug, said that the rule was that elders should not ask detailed questions. The book for Elders says that elders should “not inquire about needless details, especially in regard to sexual misconduct.”
The point here is “needless details,” As will be shown below, in most cases there is a need for details. When two persons have been intimate, the members of the Governing Body require that the elders find out whether the persons are guilty of gross uncleanness, uncleannes with greediness, brazen conduct, loose conduct, or fornication. It is impossible to find this out without asking many detailed and intimate questions. My impression is that the rule is that the elders ask a great number of questions regarding the use of the sex organs and the details of what really happened when they interrogate a Witness.
On the last day of the court case, there was a dispute between the attorneys of the state, Liv Inger Gjone Gabrielsen and the attorney of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Anders Ryssdal. According to a report from a listener, Gabrielsen argued that the elders of a judicial committee could ask detailed and unpleasant questions about the wrongdoing. Ryssdal rejected this and said: “We dispute that such conversations take place.”
Kåre Sæterhaug, who is one of the leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses, was asked whether the elders in a committee would ask detailed questions about the wrongdoing. He denied this and said that the instruction was that elders should not ask detailed questions.
The leading judge, Jørgen Monn, referred to witnesses who had described highly unpleasant and distressing interrogations, and he asked: “Could it be that someone has experienced very detailed and unpleasant questioning from a judicial committee?” Sæterhaug replied: “This has never been in line with the guidance the elders have received.” He also said that he had never heard about such situations.
I will not accuse Sæterhaug for lying in this situation. But he gave rather vague answers in order to prevent that some elders could be accused of wrongdoing. Several witnesses for the state described detailed interrogations from the elders about their sexual lives, and this is something that really occur. Let us look at the details:
The chapter “Procedure for Judicial Hearings,” 16.5, in the book “Shepherd the Flock of God” says:
The committee should first seek to establish the facts and ascertain the attitude of the accused. This requires skillful and discreet questions. The judicial committee should be thorough but not inquire about needless details, especially in regard to sexual misconduct. However, when Scriptural freedom to divorce and remarry is an issue, and when the nature of Scriptural wrongdoing must be determined, must be determined, details need to be clarified.
The words about avoiding “needless details” could, for the uninformed support the words of Særethaug that detailed and unpleasant questions do not occur at the meetings of a judicial committee. However, the word “needless” indicates that there may be situations of need, and the words “the attitude” and “the nature of Scriptural wrongdoing” indicate that there really can be situations that need many questions.
There are two reasons why there often will be a need for many detailed questions, and this is the nature of some of the “Scriptural wrongdoing” (which is not Scriptural at all), and that the goal is not only to describe the wrongdoing but it is also to find the motive and the attitude of the wrongdoer.
| Some of the disfellowshipping offenses, particularly those that are sexual in nature, require detailed and intimate interrogation. |
“GROSS UNCLEANNESS” AND “UNCLEANNESS WITH GREEDINESS”
The members of the Governing Body have constructed the terms in the heading. The first part is one of degree, uncleanness that is gross compared to a little uncleanness. The second term with the word “uncleanness with greediness” is centered around the motives of the wrongdoer.
THE CONCEPT OF “GREED” IS NEITHER FOUND IN GREEK NOR IN HEBREW
I will first discuss the concept “greed.” (Greek: pleonexia (10), pleonektēs (4), pleonekteō (5)). The numbers show the occurrence of each form in the Christian Greek Scriptures. The plural form of the noun pleonektēs is translated as “greedy people” in 1 Corinthians 5:10 NWT13. Other Bible translations also use a form of the word “greed” in this verse. I do not hesitate to say that these translations are wrong.
Just the fact that pleonektēs in 1 Corinthians 5:10 is one of the disfellowshipping offenses questions this translation. The word “greed” is defined in a footnote to Luke 12:15 in NWT13 as “an insatiable desire for more” and a Christian cannot be disfellowshipped because of a desire, for the elders cannot read the thoughts of a person.
I have made a thorough study of the three mentioned Greek words in the Christian Greek Scriptures, the Septuagint, and the Hebrew cognate words in the Hebrew Bible.[1] None of the contexts of these words suggest any side of the concept “greed.” The concept “covetousness” is found in both Greek and Hebrew. But there is no word in New Testament Greek or classical Hebrew with the meaning “an insatiable desire for more” which is the definition of “greed”.
On the basis of my study of the mentioned Greek words with the cognate Hebrew words, I found that the idea is “to exploit someone with force and unlawful means“. Therefore, I would use the word “exploiters” in 1 Corinthians 5:10 instead of “greedy people”.
THE REQUIREMENT OF DETAILED QUESTIONING
The action of stealing is a disfellowshipping offense. If a judicial committee is going to consider such a case, the situation is rather clear-cut. They will ask the Witness if it is true that he really stole the things mentioned in the accusation. This is a yes-or-no-situation. Either there is evidence or a confession of his stealing or not.
But let us now consider another disfellowshipping offense in chapter 12, point 15 (1) in the book “Shepherd the Flock of God” that absolutely is not clear-cut:
Momentary Touching on Intimate Body Parts or Caressing of Breasts. If such conduct occurred on a few isolated occasions, especially between two persons involved in courtship with the intent to marry, counsel from two elders may suffice to handle such minor uncleanness. The elders should inform the coordinator of the body of elders of the situation. However, if the conduct occurred on numerous occasions and the actions escalated in gravity and frequency, it may constitute gross uncleanness with greediness, requiring judicial action. Their wrongdoing may constitute brazen conduct if they give evidence of a disrespectful, insolent attitude toward God’s laws. For example, the individuals may have no intentions of pursuing marriage.
The quotation above shows that the judicial committee must consider whether the actions of a person who has been intimate with another person are:
gross uncleanness
uncleannes with greediness
brazen conduct
But there is more to consider, as we see in the two following quotations from The Watchtower of October 1, 1973, page 593, (above) and Awake! of February 8, 1994, page 16, (below):
11 In the modern practice of “dating,” many young couples engage in “petting” that does whip up strong feelings of passion. Yet some may argue that this is not wrong as long as there is no actual joining of the sex organs, since, as they understand matters, this is what the Bible specifically forbids for unmarried persons. Such reasoning is both mistaken and dangerous. Christians are urged to present their members no more “as slaves to uncleanness and lawlessness” but “as slaves to righteousness with holiness in view.” (Rom. 6:19)
Even if their passionate “petting” did not reach the point of “fornication” (Greek, por·neiʹa) in the Bible sense of the word, it could still constitute “uncleanness” (Greek, a·ka·thar·siʹa), an indecent, impure kind of conduct. “Uncleanness” is listed following “fornication” in the apostle’s list of works of the fallen flesh, and he warns that those who unrepentantly “practice such things will not inherit God’s kingdom.” (Gal. 5:19, 21) Not only this, but such unclean actions might steadily become more gross in nature or extent until they reach the point where they rightly are classified as “fornication” (por·neiʹa). This is because this word Scripturally refers, not just to sexual union between unmarried persons, but to all kinds of gross immorality or lewd conduct such as one might find in places of prostitution.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The Bible condemns those who take liberties with the opposite sex. What some might brush off as “harmless” petting may amount to what the Bible calls uncleanness, loose conduct, or even fornication. These are serious wrongs that could lead to expulsion from the Christian congregation.—Galatians 5:19, 21.
The two quotations show that the judicial committee also must consider whether the intimate contact between the two is:
loose conduct
fornication
When they consider each of the five serious sins (in blue), the members of the committee must keep in mind that “such unclean actions might steadily become more gross in nature.” If two youngsters have been intimate a few times, it is obvious that the members of judicial committee must ask a great number of detailed questions regarding how the persons touched the intimate body parts, what they did with them, how many times particular things happened etc.
In addition to finding out in detail what happened, they are also required to find out whether the actions are examples of uncleanness with greediness. This requires a great number of other questions. This whole situation is completely absurd. Most importantly, there is no concept of greed (an insatiable desire for more) in Greek or Hebrew, but this is an invention of the members of the Governing Body. But even if such a concept existed, the elders cannot read the thoughts of other people, and they are not able to find a bad motive behind the actions of two youngsters that is different from the normal attraction between the sexes.
| The point here is that if the elders attempt to find out whether the intimate actions between two youngsters are gross uncleanness, greediness, brazen conduct, loose conduct, or fornication, and to find out the degree of this, a great number of intimate and unpleasant questions are necessary. |
HOW PERSONS WHO HAVE BEEN INTIMATE ARE BEING TREATED
Kåre Sæterhaug said that the elders are not police officers but shepherds. This is both right and wrong. In the year 1974, the members of the Governing Body intervened in the sexual relations of married couples, and defined particular ways of having sexual relations inside marriage as lewd and as porneia (sexual immorality). Because of this, a great number of husbands were disfellowshipped and marriages were dissolved contrary to the biblical reasons for disfellowshipping and divorcebecause of the sexual relations between the couples.
In 1978, it was admitted that these decisions were wrong, and they were reversed. The Watchtower said that because the Bible does not say anything about how married persons shall perform their sexual relations, no one else can make rules regarding this. In the article discussing this, it was mentioned that the elders should not act as police officers, and the reason for mentioning police officers, was that the elders had acted as such in connection with the sexual rules inside marriage introduced by the Governing Body.
In spite of the fact that the Bible does not say anything about how the sexual act shall be performed, in 1983, the members of the Governing Body again intervened in the sexual lives of married couples and introduced the definition of lewd acts. These acts would now lead to disfellowshipping but not to the dissolution of the marriage. Again, the elders got the role of police officers, and this was enhanced when the Governing Body introduced the concepts “gross uncleanness” and “uncleanness with greediness.” This would require the role of the elders as police officers, investigating the behavior of the Witnesses by asking a number of questions.
I remember that when the requirements for the elders that they should investigate Witnesses in connection with the two mentioned situations, I said to myself that I would never take part in such investigations of the sexual lives of married couples and of youngsters who have been intimate with a girl-friend or a boy-friend. And I have never done that.
The attraction between the sexes is strong, and the strong focus of this in the media directs the focus of children to this. It is not uncommon in the congregations of the Witnesses that a child in his or her early teens starts to have some relationship with a person of the other sex. The parents oppose such an early relationship, but it is often difficult to stop it.
Among children and youngsters, there are three groups, children who are not baptized, unbaptized publishers, and baptized publishers, and if a member of any of these groups have had an intimate encounter with a person of the other sex, the elders will investigate.
The first step is that two elders have a talk with the child or youngster. If two youngsters only have kissed each other on one or two occasions, there is no need for many questions. In this situation, the two will be told that they must not be intimate with one another. But because the elders have the five categories of wrongdoing, gross uncleanness, greediness, a brazen attitude, loose conduct, or fornication in mind, in other situations than just kissing, it is necessary to ask many questions.
In many situations, the two elders find that the actions of the youngster may be serious, according to the rules of the Governing Body, and a judicial committee will be formed. The members of the committee will ask many questions in order to find the details of the actions of the youngsters. They will ask questions about the touching of the intimate body parts and the caressing of breasts, how this happened, what they did with the intimate body parts, how long this lasted, and other questions. Many detailed questions will be necessary in order to assess the actions of the youngsters to see if they are guilty of one of the five serious sins and to find the attitude of the youngsters to what they did.
Because the issue is whether the youngster must be disfellowshipped or not, more questions are necessary. The requirement is that if the sinner says that he regrets his actions, he must be able to point to works that prove that he has the right kind of regret. Moreover, the requirement of the elders is that they must be completely convinced that the sinner has the right kind of regret if they shall not disfellowship him. These two points would require further questions.
I do not have any statistics, but my impression is that most of the situations where two elders speak with a youngster, and when there is a judicial committee, the wrongdoing has to do with intimate or sexual contact in one way or another. And in such cases, there is a need to ask a great number of intimate and unpleasant questions.
Therefore, the words of the attorney of the state that the elders use to ask detailed and unpleasant questions to youngsters are true, and the denial of attorney Ryssdal is wrong.
| The rule when two elders or a judicial committee meet with a youngster who has been intimate with one of the other sex is that the elders ask a great number and unpleasant questions regarding the details of the encounter. |
[1]. https://mybelovedreligion.no/2024/11/19/the-11-disfellowshipping-offenses-1-not-greed-but-exploitation/.
CONCLUSION
The denials of Sæterhaug and Ryssdal that the elders ask detailed and unpleasant questions when they investigate wrongdoing, fits into the pattern of other denials that has been expressed in the cases in the District Court and the Court of Appeals.
The motive behind this, clearly is to portray the handling of disfellowshipped and resigned members in a false way, in order to mislead the Court of Appeals and win the case.
