A sound recording of my testimony was made, and the following transcription is based on this recording. Sometimes the sound is weak, and a few words are not transcribed. But most of the text is a verbatim transcription of what was said in court. The testimony was oral, and therefore, not all sentences are grammatically correct.
PARTICIPANTS:
The attorney of the state Liv Inger Gjone Gabrielsen (GG)
The attorneys of Jehovah’s Witnesses:
Anders Ryssdal (AR)
Sondre Sollid Aalmo (SA)
Veronica Nyhagen (VN) one of Jehovah’s Witnesses
Rolf Johan Furuli (RF)
The leading Judge Jørgen Monn (JM)
Kåre Sæterdal (KS) one of Jehovah’s Witnesses
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
JM: Welcome. Now you will give your testimony here in the Court of Appeals. You can stand. First some background information.
RF: Yes.
JM: And the… Your full name.
RF: Rolf Johan Furuli.
JM: Your date of birth?
RF: 12.19.1942.
JM: Your address? Private or business address, if you have one.
RF: Skaufaret 12C, 3292 Stavern.
JM: And your present position?
RF: I am a retired University lecturer.
JM: Witnesses are required to speak the truth. It is important that you tell the whole truth without hiding anything.
RF:I promise that.
JM: On your honour?
RF: On my honour.
JM: That is fine. The you can take your seat.
JM: I understand that you are a former Jehovah’s Witness?
RF: That is correct.
GG: Furuli. Can you tell something about your background, with stress on Jehovah’s Witnesses?
RF: Yes. I have been one of Jehovah’s Witnesses for 59 years. During 15 of these, I was a fulltime preacher. I have been an elder for 56 years, and I have had several responsible positions: circuit overseer, district overseer, teacher at courses for all elders in Norway, and a member of the Hospital Liaison Committee.
Four years ago, I was disfellowshipped because I criticized the Governing Body. Today, I have exactly the same faith as Jehovah’s Witnesses, except for the things of which I criticized the Governing Body. And I still view myself as a Jehovah’s Witness, even though my congregation does not accept that.
In addition, my background is that I have a Magister Degree in Semitic languages plus Greek and Latin. And I have a Doctoral Degree in Semitic linguistics and Culture. I have taught students at Blindern (the University) the three original languages of the Bible, as well as five other Semitic languages.
JM: For us who do not know, what are Semitic languages?
RF: Hebrew. Ethiopic, Babylonian…
GG: You said that you have been an elder?
RF: Yes
GG: Can you give us the time? Between which years?
RF: From 1963 to 2020.
GG: When were you circuit overseer?
RF: From 1965 to 1972.
JM: And in which year were you baptized?
RF: In the year 1961.
GG: It is not so important for your testimony. But were you born into Jehovah’s Witnesses?
RF: No. I was a sailor, and I came back to Norway to attend a school. And then I was contacted.
GG: We start with the literature of Jehovah’s Witnsses. Shortly, we can stop here before we go to the basic side of the case. We have read through several texts in connection with this case: The book for Elders, Keep Yourselves in God’s Love, and the Watchtower. Can you say something about these publications?
RF: Yes. Jehovah’s Witnesses view the Bible as inspired by God, which means that every word is truth. The members of the Governing Body claim that they are chosen by God to be a government for Jehovah’s Witnesses. When they write something, God is directing it. And they claim that when they publish something, this is exactly what God wants his servants on earth to read at that particular time.
Jehovah’s Witnesses view the literature almost as the word of God. And no one would dare to question anything in this literature. The book for Elders is a law-book for the elders. The Organization book is a book that all baptized ones get, and they live according to it. The most important publication is The Watchtower. And Jehovah’s Witnesses have a strong belief in its articles.
GG: What is the relationship between the literature and the Bible? Has the literature the same status as the Bible?
RF: No, no, no, the Bible is inspired. But I will give a small example showing that it is expected that Jehovah’s Witnesses must believe everything that the literature says, even when they do not understand what it says: A small example:
The Watchtower of February 2022 speaks about a difficult situation that will come in the future. And it says that the Governing Body will give (quotation) “instructions that seem strange, impractical, or illogical.” And the comments are: “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?’” Even though one is not understanding the text, one must believe it.
GG: But generally, is it difficult to understand what is written in these publications?
RF: No. The level of communication is very low, so low that any person should be able to read it with understanding. The book for Elders, of course, has some technical expressions, which the elders understand. But the book is clear, and the rest of the literature is clear, as well. It is never a question of interpretation, so to speak.
GG: Why is it written in this way?
RF: They want that all kinds of people can read it, even school children can do it…to inform we may say.
GG: So, these are texts that one can read, meditate on and interpret? Can you say anything about that?
RF: Well, “interpret,” I will not use this word. The Watchtower and the texts are simple. It is written there we can see it on the page. One exception is that recently something has occurred, but not much, where the authors on purpose express themselves in an ambiguous way. We find this in The Watchtower of August 2024, which speaks about disfellowshipping. One has made something, for example, the same expression is used with different meanings two times. And it is very difficult to discover this. So, in a way, the readers are misled. But this happens rarely. Apart from such examples, the literature is clear. We need not interpret it. We can simply read, and the meaning is what we see in on the page.
GG: We will return to the issue that you referred to. It reflects the adjustments that have been made, as far as persons who are removed from the congregation are concerned.
RF: Yes.
GG: But we take a step back from the adjustments, and look particularly on the case of disfellowshipping. I ask you to comment, on the basis of your experience, of what you know. Please be careful to tell what you know, what they are teaching, what the practice is. We are concerned about the case, and we start with what is necessary for the disfellowshipping of a person from the congregation.
RF: The book for Elders list 46 disfellowshipping offenses, and there are two more listed elsewhere. The total is 48 disfellowshipping offenses. These include the 11 disfellowshipping offenses that are mentioned in the Bible, such as adultery and theft. All the other disfellowshipping offenses are invented by the members of the Governing Body. I will give some examples:
Disagreement with the Governing Body can lead to disfellowshipping. Contact with disfellowshipped ones will lead to disfellowhipping if warnings to stop the contact are ignored. As far as morality is concerned, momentary touching of intimate body parts or caressing of breasts can lead to disfellowshipping as well as immoral conversations.
Then, the Governing Body has made a list of types of pornography that, if a person looks at one of these, can lead to disfellowshipping. One can look at other types of pornography without being disfellowshipped.
A new disfellowshipping offense was created in connection with the Corona pandemic. The Governing Body expressed strong opinions regarding the vaccine, which caused a furor in many congregations. If someone expressed disagreement with the Governing Body’s view on vaccine that could lead to disfellowshipping.
Therefore, if someone violates one of the 48, he or she will be disfellowshipped if he or she does not express regret.
GG: Then the next question. If someone violates a norm or is guilty of something, will he automatically be disfellowshipped?
RF: No. By expressing regret one will not be disfellowshipped. But this is not without problems. The Governing Body has said that it is not enough that a person expresses regret. But he must prove his regret by pointing to particular deeds. This can be difficult if a person has violated one of the 48, and the meeting with the committee is two weeks later — then one can hardly point to deeds. Moreover, the Governing Body has instructed the elders that they must be completely convinced that a person shows the right kind of regret before they can refrain from disfellowshipping him.
If the sinner is not disfellowshipped, he can get public reproof, if his sin is known by others or private reproof.
GG: And now you are speaking about, as I understand it, what is taught and what the laws and rules are. Do you have anything else to say regarding how this is practiced?
RF: No. It is practiced. And all these rules are found in the book for Elders, and they are practiced to the smallest detail. There will never be any deviation from these rules.
GG: Then we want to hear about the contact with those who have been disfellowshipped.
RF: Yes. The Governing Body demands that a person who has been disfellowshipped must be shunned and be totally isolated. An important idea behind this is that when a person loses all his friends and all his family who are Witnesses, he will become so shaken that he turns around and comes back to the congregation. This arrangement was introduced in 1952, and during the 59 years when I have been a Witness, this has been strictly practiced in all congregations.
The only exception to the total isolation is when contact is unavoidable, for example when one works at the same place as a disfellowshipped one or live in the same household. And as the Governing Body has said, if something very special happens in a family, for example the opening of a will — this is mentioned — Then one can have contact with a disfellowshipped person but only a minimal contact.
There came a small change last year. Then the Governing Body allowed a Witness to invite a disfellowshipped one to a meeting — this was previously forbidden. And if the disfellowshipped one came to the meeting, a short greeting was allowed — this was also previously forbidden. But it is still forbidden to have an extended conversation with the disfellowshipped one.
GG:Then we have heard here in court that there are variations in connection with how this is practiced. It is some contact in the same household. But what is the main impression of this practice? Is it practiced in a strict way?
RF: Jehovah’s Witnesses are very loyal, and very obedient. Therefore, my experience is that most of them will practice this and will not have any contact with disfellowshipped persons. This is also the case with family. But, of course, in connection with family there are feelings. So, there are some, but in my experience very few, who have a little contact with disfellowshipped ones.
GG: But is it the case that Jehovah’s Witnesses teach its members that each one can decide how much contact they will have?
RF: No! And in this case, there is much wrong information that is given. A few weeks ago, there was an article in the newspaper Dagen about a couple who had left Jehovah’s Witnesses. The branch office was asked to make a comment, and Jørgen Pedersen responded. He wrote that each Witness will decide how much contact he or she will have with those who have been disfellowshipped.
And to describe the situation how it is. This is not true. This is a direct lie. I will explain this. If a Witness practiced what Pedersen wrote, which he said was representative of Jehovah’s Witnesses, he could have been disfellowshipped. If a Witness on the basis of his conscience chose to have contact with a disfellowshipped person, the elders would ask him to stop with this. If he did not stop, they would ask him a second time to stop, and if he still continued, he himself would be disfellowshipped. This is written in the book for Elders, chapter 12, point 17.1. We need not study much literature before we see that total isolation is a demand from the Governing Body.
I will refer to a good example. There is a video of a young woman who was disfellowshipped.
GG: We have already seen this video.
RF: Then I will not say anything more about it. It shows that even the smallest contact is forbidden. This video has been removed from the website of Jehovah’s Witnesses. When I read what Pedersen wrote, know that this video has been removed, and read what several leading Witnesses have written, it seems to me that systematic attempts are being made to play down the severity of the way disfellowshipped persons are treated, and in a way minimize it.
And even more important, systematic attempts to take the responsibility of the way disfellowshipped ones are treated from the Governing Body and of the elders and put it on the shoulder of each Witnesses — because it is each Witness’ personal conscience that will decide how much contact he or she will have with disfellowshipped ones — but this is not true!
GG: Yes. As an extension of this, I wonder: This strong reaction towards disfellowshipped ones. Is it the same for those who choose to resign from Jehovah’s Witnesses?
RF: Yes, it is.
JM: Can you repeat the question?
GG: Whether it is the same for those who resign from Jehovah’s Witnesses, this reduction of contact?
RF: Yes. The book for Elders uses the technical expression «disassociation» for resigning. The book says that disassociated persons shall be viewed and treated as disfellowshipped persons.
A Witness can resign by writing a letter or by telling the elders. But the Governing Body has made the arrangement that a person can resign by his actions. This more clearly shows that disassociation is the same as disfellowshipping. I will give two short examples:
In the 20th century, a person who accepted a blood transfusion without regretting it would be disfellowshipped. In the 21st century, one has made a change – then, the person will not be disfellowshipped. But the elders will say that he has voluntarily disassociated himself from the congregation because he no longer wants to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. These are the words of the book for Elders. But the reality is that he is thrown out. He will not be allowed to be in the congregation if he wants to stay.
There is a book entitled Correspondence Guidelines, that is written to help the branch offices to answer letters. In this book, 14 different types of work that are forbidden are listed. One of these is when a Witness is doing cleaning work in a military camp, for example, is cleaning the quarters of the soldiers. If this happens, two elders will speak with the Witness and say: “You have six months to change your work. If you have not changed your work after six months, we will view you as one who voluntarily has disassociated herself from the congregation because you do not want to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses any more. But the reality is that she got an ultimatum, which she did not accept, and then she is thrown out of the congregation. This shows that to resign is the same as being disfellowshipped.
GG: And then, I will return again to the contact. We have heard that in the same household the family ties are not broken. Inside the family the family bonds are not broken. Can you say something about those who live in the same household, and whose who do not?
RF: As you say, those in the same household will live together. But if one is disfellowshipped, the relationship to his or her spouse will change. The family ties will not be broken. But if anyone does not live in the same household, the rule is total isolation.
GG: But for persons in the same household, the guidance is that they will not have spiritual contact?
RF: Well, yes, they must eat together and talk with each other. But spiritual contact means to speak about the Bible. This they must not do.
GG: How great part of the life of a Jehovah’s Witnesses would you say is counted as spiritual contact? Is it one hour per week or more?
RF: Spiritual contact between two persons, you mean?
GG: What is spiritual contact? And how much on one’s life is related to spiritual activities?
RF: Spiritual activities. Yes, a great part. There are two meetings each week, and then they use to have a family study, they are preaching to others, and they speak about the Bible. I cannot mention a percentage, but a great part of the lives of Jehovah’s Witnesses is related to spiritual issues, to have spiritual contact with other persons.
GG: A person who has been disfellowshipped who lives together with one who has not been disfellowshipped, can this person accompany the other and visit congregation members?
RF: No.
GG: No. What are persons who are Jehovah’s Witnesses taught about the process of disfellowshipping?
RF: I have read a couple of articles saying that those who are disfellowshipped know to what they are going. So, they cannot complain about it. This is not true. When a person is interested, a Witness will study the Bible with him by using a study book. And here, in this study book, disfellowshipping is not mentioned. This is a negative subject, and the Witness will only discuss the positive sides of the Bible.
To become a Jehovah’s Witness, there are two steps. When a person believes that this is the truth, he will dedicate himself to Jehovah. In prayer to God he will say: «I dedicate myself to you Jehovah, and I will serve you eternally.” After this, he will speak to an elder, saying that he wants to symbolize his dedication to Jehovah by being baptized. Then two elders will discuss a number of questions with him. But in these questions, disfellowshipping is not mentioned. The Organization book that he receives, discusses disfellowshipping. But usually, such a person is so concentrated of the questions that he does not read anything else in the Organization book
I would say that 99% of this group who dedicate themselves to Jehovah have never heard about disfellowshipping. And 98% of this group who are baptized have not heard about disfellowshipping. But of course, in the congregation a person will hear about disfellowshipping because this may occur.
GG: We have not read all the questions in the book. My question is about the situation when persons avoid contact with disfellowshipped ones, then there is the knowledge that they must do this. This knowledge must come from some place. And this is our question here. Is this a subject at the meetings?
RF: Usually, it is not a subject at the meetings. But when someone is disfellowshipped, this is read from the platform. And in the Organization book, there is a couple of pages where disfellowshipping is discussed. So, when one becomes a Witness, he will be taught about it. But there is no special teaching that will speak about disfellowshipping.
The only thing is that during the years, the Governing Body several times has sent letters, that will be discussed at a meeting, that stresses the importance of total isolation. This is very important. That is the only thing I can think of.
GG: Then I will speak a little of this, about the disfellowshipping of minors. Then I have completed all my questions. You have been an elder for å long time. What is the usual age for baptism in the congregation?
RF: Regarding those who are growing up, between 15 and 19 years.
GG: How is it viewed to be baptized early or late?
RF: The governing Body has written several articles where early baptism is recommended, 12 years are mentioned and also 10 years. The latest Watchtower of March 2025 has a recommendation of baptism when one is 12 years. When I say “recommendation,” the text is not that you must consider baptism when you are 12 years old. But the Watchtower has a fine description of one who was baptized when he was 12 years old. The Watchtower is the role model, and readers will follow its lead. But it is true that not many minors below 15 years are baptized. However, I know of three persons who were baptized when they were 8 years old. But this is rare.
GG: Which requirements of maturity are there in connection with baptism?
RF: The literature stresses maturity, that they must know what they are doing, that they must have faith. Before they are baptized, two elders will go through 60 questions with the one who will be baptized, and they will either recommend that the person will be baptized or not. This is a very good basis to see if the baptism candidate is mature enough. Moreover, these are children who have grown up in the congregation whom the elders know, which gives that elders a good basis for evaluating them. So, maturity is stressed.
However, it is easy to go under the radar. There are many examples of minors who have been baptized, and after a short time they have left the congregation. This illustrates that it is easy to go under the radar.
GG: And now I am coming to the subject of disfellowshipping of minors. Firstly, do you have any experience with minors that have been disfellowshipped in your congregation?
RF: Not in my congregation. I will say that in the congregation to which I belonged for 35 years we were extremely cautious with disfellowshipping. It could have been ten examples during 35 years.
GG: This is good to know. What is the rule about this? Can minors be disfellowshipped?
RF: Yes, all who are baptized can be disfellowshipped.
GG: Then they must meet a judicial committee?
RF: What did you say?
GG: They must meet with a judicial committee first?
RF:Yes, if they are going to be disfellowshipped, yes. But here there is a small adjustment…
GG: Yes, this is something we have discussed. Is there anything you would like to say about this? But we know the contents.
RF: That is fine. I will not say anything about it.
GG: A minor who is baptized, will he know about the system of disfellowshipping beforehand and make a decision about it?
RF:As I said, 99% of the interested ones who are baptized will not know about it. But afterwards they will learn about it.
GG: Other reactions in connection with minors before disefellowshipping, is this a subject?
RF: Are you speaking about minors?
JM: Does this relate to minors?
RF: Baptized or unbaptized?
GG: Now, I am speaking about baptized minors, but I am also interested in unbaptized ones. You can start with those who are baptized.
RF:Yes, this is clear. They can receive public reproof. This will influence the congregation. It is specially that…Few of the other youngsters will look negatively on public reproof of another youngster. But the parents will care. If this happens, the parents may forbid their children to have anything to do with the one who received public reproof. This may lead to the one being frozen out of the fellowship with the youngsters in the congregation. This is a very sensitive issue, especially for parents.
GG: Which kind of wrongdoing is typical for youngsters?
RF: Clearly, this is related to the attraction between the sexes, which i strong. Momentary touching of intimate body parts or caressing of breasts is a disfellowshipping offense. I will say that in a congregation where there are some youngsters, about half of them have been reproved by elders because they have gone a little too far in their relationships with the other sex. This is the basic problem.
GG: We have touched the issue of bad associations. Are you familiar with this concept?
RF:Yes, this is what I mentioned in connection with unbaptized publishers. If, for example, an unbaptized publisher violates one of the 48, he will lose his status as an unbaptized publisher. This will be mentioned in the congregation. And the parents will then consider whether their children should be together with this one.
In rare cases, when the elders view that others can be inflenced by the wrongdoer, they give a speech in the congregation about the sin and how to avoid it. Then, the congregation understands that this is a reference to the unbaptized publisher. After that, he may be frozen out of the relationship with the youngsters. But such speeches are rare.
GG: Then you started with unbaptized publishers, and that is OK. The next question is whether there is a difference in the reactions towards a baptized and an unbaptized person?
RF: Yes, it is. If an unbaptized person does something wrong, two elders will decide the case. Not a judicial committee, this is only for baptized ones.
GG: This is far away from your age group. But this about bad associations, when you get reproof, is this serious?
RF: Yes, it is serious. It is natural that we all want to share company with persons who are like us. This is particularly important for Jehovah’s Witnesses because they only rarely are together with persons outside the congregation. If someone is known to be bad association, the parents react. And this is quite serious. Then the person may be excluded from the fellowship of the youngsters. Not because they youngsters care about reproof of others. But because the parents care about it.
GG: Is this something you yourself have experienced?
RF: Yes, many times.
GG: Then I do not have more questions for you. Thank you.
AR: Thank you. A little about your background, Furuli. You are educated as a linguist? But you are not a theologian or a historian?
RF: No, lingvist.
AR: You have published a book with some subjects that deals with our interest of Jehovah’s Witnesses?
RF: I have published two such books. I also have a webpage where I write about the Bible and about Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is popular, and it has 198 000 followers.
AR: You were removed from the congregation because of religious disagreement. Is this correct to say?
RF: We may say that. And religious disagreement is…
AR: What is it that is called an apostate? You have a different viewpoint. This was the reason why you were disfellowshipped, that you have a different view of religious issues?
RF: A different view. A different view of the Governing Body in different areas. But as I previously have said, I have exactly the same faith as Jehovah’s Witnesses in all other areas.
AR: Yes. But this was the reason why you were disfellowshipped that you have a different view of religious issues?
RF: I could not be silent any longer. Situations arose that were very destructive for Jehovah’s Witnesses. And I had to speak up. I wrote a book, and I sent the manuscript to the Governing Body, and I wrote that if they wanted to start to change some of the wrong situations, the book would not be published. The answer was no, and the book was published.
AR: Yes, and then you were disfellowshipped?
RF: Yes.
AR: There are not so many persons we know of who have been disfelowshipped because they have another viewpoint. Do you know others?
RF:Yes, others have also this viewpoint. You know that 70,000 were disfellowshipped last year. I speak about the whole world. I know about persons who have criticized something, and they have been disfellowshipped. In connection with vaccine, for example, there were some examples. So, I am not alone about this.
AR: You said previously, and you have also written something about it, that if someone asks you, you recommend that they should consider to become Jehovah’s Witnesses.
RF:Yes. Because Jehovah’s Witnesses is the true religion, in spite of the fact that the Governing Body has given themselves dictatorial power and has created a great number of problems.
AR: So, you actually recommend people to sign in and become Jehovah’s Witnesses?
RF: No, I am not doing that. But if anyone asks me, then I will say that this is the community that, to a great extent, follow the Bible. I will say that more than 90% is directly based on the Bible. “Here is the truth,” I will say to people.
AR: Do you think that Jehovah’s Witnesses deserve to be registered and receive state subsidies?
RF: The word “deserve” is a little problematic in this context. I will give an example. Some years ago, the County Governor sent a letter to Jehovah’s Witnesses about a book entitled Making Your family Life Happy. At this time, the Law of Children had been revised. But the book said that it was correct to give corporal punishment to children and to spank them. The County Governor asked what the Witnesses would do in connection with the Law of Children. The answer was that Jehovah’s Witnesses would obey the law. They changed the expressions, and a new edition of the book was printed without mentioning corporal punishment, so we accepted this law.
I use this as an example of this situation. The question is whether Jehovah’s Witnesses exert pressure on the members not to resign by treating the resigned ones in the same way as disfellowshipped ones. If this is the case, my opinion is that they should not be registered and get state subsidies. But apart from this, I am absolutely in favor of the registration of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
AR: You have said that Jehovah’s Witnesses are the best parents that exist. Most of Jehovah’s Witnesses use much time together with children and are good parents.
JM: What are you reading from?
AR: I read from my notes.
RF: I wholly agree with these words, because this is my experience. They use much time together with the children, they teach them, they let them play. So, I am not aware of any better parents.
AR: Then you have given an account of disfellowshipping and baptism that stands in stark contrast to much of what we have heard here. But that is a question of evidence that I shall not discuss with you. But during the years when you were an elder in the congregations, did you follow these draconic understandings that you yourself have presented here, that people who have been disfellowshipped cannot have any contact with their children and so forth. Did you follow these rules as an elder?
RF: Absolutely! I mentioned previously that I belonged to a congregation in Oslo, and there were extremely few persons that were disfellowshipped. But we followed strictly what I have said.
AR:: But you mentioned 10 disfellowshippings during 35 years?
RF: Yes.
AR: But that arw very few.
RF: Yes, it was not. About 1% will be disfellowshipped. It was because…
AR: But did you have any second thoughts in connection with the disfellowshippings in which you participated?
RF: No.
AR: Why not?
RF: No, because then the situation was such that they deserved to be disfellowshipped. But now more weight is put on helping people not to be disfellowshipped. We did that already at this time. We would offer help to those who were guilty of serious wrongdoing, as far as we could. And that is the reason why few Witnesses were disfellowshipped in the Majorstua congregation.
AR: How long time is it since you participated in congregation meetings among Jehovah’s Witnesses?
RF: This is 2020, four years ago.
AR: Four years ago?
RF: Yes.
AR: And before that when you had a different view of religion, you also participated?
RF: I did not have another view of religion. But I saw the development of things in the 21st century: I saw many wrong things and many serious things that the Governing Body introduced, rules and laws. But I could not do anything with it. But at one time it became so much, that I thought: I cannot refrain from speaking up because this is serious for many Jehovah’s Witnesses.
AR: Do you have children?
RF: No.
AR: So, you cannot tell what it is like to have contact with children, personally?
RF: Yes, I can. My brother in law has six children. And while they grew up, they spent all their vacations with my wife and me. So, we had a lot to do with children. But I have not raised children.
AR: Were they Jehovah’s Witnesses?
RF: Yes.
AR: So, you have had contact with children who are Jehovah’s Witnesses, and I understand that this is relatively unproblematic. But you have no experience of having contact with children who are not Jehovah’s Witnesses?
RF: With children that are not Jehovah’s Witnesses?
JM: What was the last question? Can you repeat that?
AR: He says that he has nephews and nieces who are Jehovah’s witnesses that he has had contact with. Then I posed the question: Have you had contact with children that er not Jehovah’s Witnesses?
JM: OK.
RF: No, a little, but not much.
AR: You said this with vaccine and Covid and disfellowshipping offense. When you left in 2020, it is a little interesting to hear if you had any personal experience with this. But this is an extra question that I must ask Sæterhaug. Because you left before the problems with Covid.
RF: That is true.
AR: Then… Has my colleague any questions?
SA: Yes, thank you. We have seen evidence here in court that you have published a study- an article about a study you did in 2015-2016. Is this correct?
RF: Yes.
SA: Can you start to talk about the subject of this study?
RF:There were some studies saying that the mental condition among Jehovah’s Witnesses were much worse than in the population at large. So, I did an investigation among 15,000 Witnesses in 15 countries. The conclusion was that mental illness and severe depression among the Witnesses were much lower than in the population. This accords with my experience during my 59 years as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
The situation is that Jehovah’s Witnesses have much stricter requirements than most others. This may have a negative effect of their psychical situation. On the other side is that of having faith, know that you have friends, that you have a future, knowing what happens at death, and so forth. This gives such strength that it compensates for the negative influence of stricter requirements. This is a study that was presented at a scientific congress.
SA: Yes, we have shown that. There is also another thing from this article that I want to stress. But you can tell freely. You criticize previous research.
RF: Yes.
SA: Yes, in which way?
RF: There was one with the name of Jerry Bergman who did a bad work from the point of view of scientific research.
SA: You say «bad work». Which position did he have?
RF: He was one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the 1970s, for a while, and then he left.
SA: Exactly. Can you say anything about the research made by previous members? You write about it in the article. Can you say anything about it?
RF: I will say that you must look at the person, and not say that research made by previous members is less good that research made by members.
SA: What do you mean by “look at the person”?
RF: It is a generalization that is impossible and unscientific. One has to look at what the person has written. And one must evaluate this from a balanced viewpoint, whether we can believe it or not. We should not have the prejudiced opinion that this person has been one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. And, therefore, we cannot trust him. This is unscientific.
VN: Du you agree that the branch office can give counsel to the elders?
RF: That they give counsel?
VN: Yes.
RF: I agree with that.
VN: Have you been a member of the committee at the branch office?
RF: The committee, no.
VN: Have you been a member of the committee in what previously was Norway?
RF: No.
VN: You have been circuit overseer and district overseer, and apart from that you have been an ordinary elder for many years?
RF: Yes.
GG: We have heard that there are 1,500 – 1,600 elders in Norway.
VN: Do you know that Jehovah’s Witnesses go through a Bible study before they are baptized?
RF: Yes, yes.
VN: Have you heard about The hope of a bright future?
RF: Yes,
VN: “What can you do if you have committed a serious sin?” Hav you heared about that?
RF: If I have heard about that? Yes.
VN: Does this chapter speak about disfellowshipping?
RF: This I simply do not recall? When I spoke about being taught before baptism, I referred to the study book that is used. There is nothing about disfellowshipping in this book. And it is logical that a person will portray the Bible in a positive way, point out what is positive and not what is negative.
VN: No. We may look at this…
SA: You said that before baptism there were 98, 99 percent that did not know about the arrangement of disfellowshipping.
RF: That was my assessment, yes.
SA: My colleague says that the ones go through a study of the Bible. Is disfellowshipping mentioned there?
RF: No.
SA: Well, no.
RF: If they use the study book designed for study. What is the name?…, What can the Bible teach us?
AR: Have you seen this before, Furuli?
RF: This is a book that has appeared after my time.
JN: Let us see, Furuli. The only body that you have criticized, are they who are in New York?
RF: Yes. I will say that the best people I can think of are Jehovah’s Witnesses because they make a hard effort to follow the Bible. Only few others do that.
JN: Is the disagreement you have with this body of elders, is it about the disfellowshipping system, or other subjects?
RF: To a great degree, it relates to the system of disfellowshipping. This simply has to do with the lives of people.
JN: You are critical to the arrangement of disfellowshipping?
RF: Yes, to the highest degree.
JN: Thank you because you came and gave your testimony.
AR: I have a question for Sæterhaug.
JN: yes, I have expected that. Be quick.
AR: Is it correct that persons who did not take vaccination were disfellowshipped?
KS: No.
RF: I have not said that. This is a misunderstanding. I said that if a Witness disagreed with what the Governing Body said about vaccination and expressed that; we got a letter saying that this would be a reason for disfellowshipping — not that someone did not take the vaccine.
ADDITION:
AN ARTICLE I WROTE IN THE NEWSPAPER DAGEN FEBRUARY 25, 2025
It is likely that Jehovah’s Witnesses would not have lost their registration and state subsidies if they had not lied to the County Governor. In 2019, I was made aware of the fact that the County Governor had asked Jehovah’s Witnesses several questions and that their letter to the County Governor contained several lies. As an elder, I was taught always to tell the truth, and if I discovered something that was wrong, I should quickly do something with it.
Therefore, I wrote a letter to the County Governor and pointed out the lies. Others sent letters as well. Because of this, the County Governor conducted a thorough investigation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the result was that they lost their registration and state subsidies. Ordinary members of Jehovah’s Witnesses do not lie, but their leaders continue to lie.
One important question in the case is whether Jehovah’s Witnesses’ treatment of those who resign is a violation of the law that anyone has the right to resign from a religious denomination without any form of coercion. The tactics of the leaders during the last two years have been to describe in a false way how disfellowshipped and resigned members are treated in order to pretend that there is no form of coercion.
The arrangement that has been practiced strictly during the 59 years when I have been a Witness is that disfellowshipped members must be shunned and be completely isolated. Only absolutely necessary contact can be accepted: if witnesses work at the same place or live in the same household or if a special situation occurs in a family. Last year, there was a small change. Now, it was allowed to invite a disfellowshipped person to a meeting and say a short greeting if he came to the meeting. But any other contact was still forbidden.
The Book for Elders says that if a Witness continues to have contact with a disfellowshipped person, after several warnings to stop the contact, he himself will be disfellowshipped.
On February 17, 2022, Jehovah’s Witnesses sent a letter to the County Governor where they appealed the decision og losing state subsidies. Regarding resigned members, the letter said:
On the other hand, a person who, by his free will, chooses to renounce his spiritual state as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses and formally resign will be respected for his decision. It is the choice of each one who is connected with the congregation, on the basis of his religious conscience, to decide if he will limit or completely avoid contact with this person.
The last part of the quotation is a lie. All those who have resigned must be shunned and completely isolated, and it is not the choice of each Witness how much contact he or she will have with resigned persons.
On January 31, this year, the newspaper Dagen had an article about a couple who had left Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the branch office was asked to comment. Jørgen Pedersen wrote:
Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that each one of the congregation members, on the basis of his personal conscience, will decide whether he or she will limit or stop having social contact with previous members of the congregation in the light of the Bible’s instruction in 1 Corinthians 5:11-13 about “stop keeping company” with such a person. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not force members to do that. Neither do the elders in the congregation exercise any control of the personal lives of the congregation members, nor do they control the faith of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
That each witness can decide how much or how little contact he or she can have with a disfellowshipped person is a lie. That the elders do not control the contact between Witnesses and disfellowshipped persons is a lie as well.
In the case in the District Court in January 2024, Kåre Sæterhaug expressed the same points as the two quotations above do and the same he did in the Court of Appeal. This means that he lied to the court! The purpose of this, evidently, is to take the responsibility of how disfellowshipped and resigned persons are treated away from the Governing Body and the elders and put it on the shoulder of each member. If it is the members who decide how much or how little contact they will have with resigned persons, the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot be accused of exercising any coercion to prevent members from resigning.
The ironic side of this situation is that ordinary members have never been taught and do not have any idea that they are the ones who will decide how much or how little contact they will have with disfellowshipped and resigned persons. They have been taught that all contact with these is forbidden, except in the mentioned situations where contact is absolutely necessary.
There is a simple way for the leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses to show that what I have written above is not true: They can point to a dated letter, an article in the Watchtower, or information given at a meeting (dated) saying that the demand of total isolation of disfellowshipped and resigned persons have been annulled, and from now on each member must decide how little or how much contact he or she will have with disfellowshipped and resigned members.
