ONE OF THE 37 DISFELLOWSHIPPING OFFENSES CREATED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING BODY WITH NO BIBLICAL SUPPORT
There is no Greek word for malicious lying, and the Greek term dolos (deceit, cunning) is never mentioned in a situation that may imply disfellowshipping. This indicates that “malicious lying” is a disfellowshipping offense that is invented and introduced by the members of the Governing Body without any basis in the Bible.
An article in The Watchtower from 2001 says that Christians can never lie under oath. But it opens up the possibility that Christians can lie in critical situations.
This article shows that the leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses have both lied under oath and in other situations. This is a clear violation of Jehovah’s laws.
Recently, leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Norway and the USA have been accused of lying in court. This article will discuss the definition of lying, what the literature of Jehovah’s Witnesses says about lying, and an analysis of the leaders’ words in court. Did they really lie?
The book for elders “Shepherd The Flock Of God” (2019),12, point 22, says regarding deliberate, malicious lying:
- Deliberate, Malicious Lying; Bearing False Witness: (Prov. 6:16, 19; Col. 3:9; Rev. 22:15; it-2 pp 244-245) Though all lying is bad, judicial action is taken only if there has been a practice of deliberate, malicious lying. “Malicious” means deliberately harmful, harboring ill will or enmity. Lying that requires judicial action involves more than just exaggerations or petty, misleading statements of relatively minor consequence or lying because of momentary pressure or fear of man. –Matt 26:69-75.
- Generally, elders should not consider administering discipline if a Christian charges another Christian with making false statements in a court dispute. For example, this may involve divorce, child custody and support, and so forth. The Christian making the charge can express his concerns to the court that has the responsibility to determine what is truthful when rendering a judgment.
DIFFERENT FORMS OF LYING
Both the Watchtower literature and secular literature show that lying can be manifested in different ways.
THE DEFINITION OF LYING IN THE WATCHTOWER LITERATURE
The lexicon Insight on the Scriptures volume 2, page 245, defines “lie” in the following way:
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. A lie need not always be verbal. It can also be expressed in action, that is, a person may be living a lie.
The Watchtower, public edition No 1, 2016, page 5, has the following comments on “lying.”
Lying
WHAT IS IT? Saying something false to someone who is entitled to know the truth. Lying can include misrepresenting or distorting facts in order to mislead a person, omitting key information to deceive someone, and exaggerating the truth in order to give a false impression.
WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS: “Jehovah detests a devious person, but His close friendship is with the upright.” (Proverbs 3:32) “Now that you have put away deceit, each one of you speak truth with his neighbor.”—Ephesians 4:25.
Slander
WHAT IS IT? Uttering false and malicious statements that injure a person’s reputation.
WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS: “A troublemaker causes dissension, and a slanderer separates close friends.” (Proverbs 16:28) “Where there is no wood, the fire goes out, and where there is no slanderer, quarreling ceases.”—Proverbs 26:20.
This definition in Insight includes three elements (1-3), and the definition in the Watchtower includes three moreelements (4-6):
- Saying something false.
- Speaking to one who is entitled to know the truth.
- Speaking with the intent to deceive or injure someone.
- Misrepresenting or distorting facts in order to mislead.
- Omitting key information.
- Exaggerating the truth in order to give a false impression.
The simplest definition of lying is to say something that is not true. But five of the definitions stress different important sides of lying. However, point 2) must be excluded as a part of the definition of lying. As it stands, it implies that if we say something false to one who is not entitled to know the truth, that is not the same as lying. However, any false statement is a lie, even when the person to whom we are speaking is not entitled to hear the truth.
The focus will be on the view of lying among Jehovah’s Witnesses, and on whether their leaders have lied in court.
THE DEFINITION OF LYING IN THE BIBLE
The Hebrew verb rākal has, according to the Hebrew lexicon by Brown, Driver, and Briggs, the meaning “go about, from one to another (for trade for gossip).” One can trade merchandise, and one can trade words. The meaning of “gossip” is weaker than “slander” and does not include “ill will or enmity.” The corresponding noun rākīl has the meaning “slander” according to BDB and “slander, gossip” according to the Hebrew-English lexicon of Kohlenberger/ Mounce.
Below is the translation of Leviticus 19:16 (NWT13) with the noun rākīl.
16“‘You must not go around spreading slander (rākīl) among your people. You must not stand up against the life of your fellow man. I am Jehovah.
It is likely that the meaning of rākīl in this verse is “slander” rather than “gossip.” The Septuagint renders rākīl in this verse with the Greek word dolos, which means “deceit, cunning.” Therefore, combining these two connotations, spreading ‘deceitful gossip’ about someone is very close to the meanings of malicious lying or spreading slander.
In the Christian Greek Scriptures, the noun pseudos (“lie”) is used ten times. But there is no Greek word for “malicious lie” or for “slander.” However, the Greek word dolos “deceit, cunning” occurs 11 times. Second Peter 2:22 says about Jesus that no deceit (dolos) was found in his mouth.” And if a person is speaking deceit, that may be close to and include ‘malicious lies’ or “slander.”
It should be noted, however, that neither the word pseudos (“lie”) nor dolos (“deceit, cunning”) occurs in a context where disfellowshipping is mentioned. This means that the disfellowshipping offense “malicious lie” was invented and introduced by the members of the Governing Body without any basis in the Bible. Therefore, disfellowshipping a Witness for “deliberate, malicious lying” is an action that is completely unsanctioned by God.
PROBLEMS OF THE JUDICIAL CASES DEALING WITH MALICIOUS LYING
We have the same situation in connection with this disfellowshipping offense as we have in most of the other 37 disfellowshipping offenses that are made up and invented by the Governing Body — the problem of ambiguity.
We note that the Governing Body does not list “lying” as a disfellowshipping offense. But “malicious lying,” is considered grounds for disfellowshipping, evidently because malicious, meaning “deliberately harmful, harboring ill will or enmity,” takes lying to another level.
The first problem for a judicial committee is in finding out what really was said. It is true that the behavior of a person can be a lie — he or she can be a living lie. But in most cases, lies are expressed verbally. And so, the important question for the committee is: What was actually said? But establishing this is in many cases next to impossible, even when there are eyewitnesses. An article that underscores the problem is entitled “Myth: Eyewitness Testimony is the Best Kind of Evidence,” and it says:
But being convincing isn’t the same as being accurate. Eyewitness testimony is more fallible than many people assume. The advent of DNA analysis in the late 1980s revolutionized forensic science, providing an unprecedented level of accuracy about the identity of actual perpetrators versus innocent people falsely accused of crime. DNA testing led to the review of many settled cases. According to the Innocence Project , 358 people who had been convicted and sentenced to death since 1989 have been exonerated through DNA evidence. Of these, 71% had been convicted through eyewitness misidentification and had served an average of 14 years in prison before exoneration. Of those false identifications, 41% involved cross-racial misidentifications (221 of the 358 people were African American). And 28% of the cases involved a false confession.
The claim that eyewitness testimony is reliable and accurate is testable, and the research is clear that eyewitness identification is vulnerable to distortion without the witness’s awareness. More specifically, the assumption that memory provides an accurate recording of experience, much like a video camera, is incorrect. Memory evolved to give us a personal sense of identity and to guide our actions. We are biased to notice and exaggerate some experiences and to minimize or overlook others. Memory is malleable.[1]
New DNA-techniques have shown that many persons have been wrongfully convicted by the courts in the USA. One study of 1,198 wrongful conviction cases found that about 50% of wrongful convictions involved eyewitness misidentification. Two other studies of 312 and 873 wrongful convictions respectively found 75% and 76% rof wrong identification by eyewitnesses.[2]
Generally, we trust eyewitnesses. But when the question is what exactly was said in a certain situation, we understand that it is difficult to know the true answer. Based on my own experience, I would say that cases that build on what was actually said are extremely problematic.
Problem 1: The elders have not been educated in handling judicial cases. The only “help” they have is passages dealing with judicial cases in the book “Shepherd The flock Of God.” But we cannot really learn how to handle other humans in a judicial case by reading a book.
Problem 2: Very few elders are aware of the fact that portions, even large portions, of eyewitness testimony turn out to be mistaken or false. The eyewitnesses have the best of intentions, but their memory is, to some extent, fooling them. Therefore, confirming the accuracy of an eyewitness’s accusation that a brother or sister is lying is extremely difficult.
Problem 3: For the judicial committee, the insurmountable problem, is that the members “must read the mind” of the accused one. If the elders think that, having established that a brother has been lying, their job is done, they have another “think” coming. The elders must next determine if the lie was intended to cause deliberate harm and was motivated by ill will or enmity, which is the definition of “malicious” in the expression “malicious lying”? But how can the elders possibly know or ascertain this without the ability to read minds?
Disfellowshipping a Witness because the elders think that he or she has bad motives violates the biblical principle that only actions that are proven can lead to disfellowshipping. However, in this case, the Witness is not disfellowshipped because of lying in itself, but because of the bad motives behind the lie. Yes, the elders on the judicial committee must act on the basis of their subjective viewpoints and gut feelings to assess and decide the motives of the person who has been lying. And since they cannot read minds, their views will often be wrong.
Not only are 37 of the 48 disfellowshipping offenses made up and invented by the Governing Body. But many of them are ambiguous, and the Witnesses are judged on the basis of their emotions and inclinations, their state of mind, rather than on any concrete acts of wrongdoing they have committed. The elders who take it upon themselves to judge the person based on these elusive premises will bear great accountability when they inevitably get it wrong.
[1]. https://www.psychologicalscience.org/teaching/myth-eyewitness-testimony-is-the-best-kind-of-evidence.html.
[2] . https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4131297/.
ARE THERE SITUATIONS WHERE CHRISTIANS HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIE?
There are two reasons for the question in the heading. First, there are situations in the Bible where some of God’s servants in the past said something that was not true. Can this be used as a pattern for Christians today? Second, the definition of “lie,” according to Insight on the Scriptures, is “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.” Does this definition mean that Christians are permitted to say something false to a person who is not entitled to know the truth?
WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM GOD’S SERVANTS IN THE PAST WHO HID THE TRUTH?
This issue was discussed in the Watchtower literature 60 years ago, and very little has been written about it in the 21st century. The Watchtower of February 1, 1956, pages 81-87, contains the article entitled “Cautious as Serpents Among Wolves.” This article discusses examples of God’s servants in the past like Abraham, Rahab, and David, who misled their enemies and said something that was only partially true or even completely false. The comment of the author of the article is that these were times of theocratic warfare, and that can explain the behavior of God’s servants:
19 Remember that there was war then. The enemies did not deserve to learn the truth to the hurt or endangerment of Jehovah’s servants. In wartime it is proper to misdirect the wolfish enemy. While the king’s misdirected men were gone in a vain pursuit, Rahab helped the two spies to escape over the city wall. God’s Word commends her action as the practical proof of her faith: “In the same manner was not also Rahab the harlot declared righteous by works, after she had received the messengers hospitably and sent them out by another way?” So the lives of Rahab and her relatives were spared when Jericho’s walls were tumbled down and all the other cityfolk were wiped out.—Josh. 2:1-24; 6:17-23 and Jas. 2:25, NW.
The important question is whether Jehovah’s servants today can follow the example of Rahab and others in the past. The article says on pages 87 and 88:
37 In view of the above-given Scriptural examples Jesus was in harmony with the spirit of Jehovah God in instructing his apostles when he sent them out as sheep among wolves: “Prove yourselves cautious as serpents and yet innocent as doves.” Since the unchristian wolves declare war upon the sheep and choose to make themselves “fighters actually against God,” it is proper for the inoffensive “sheep” to use war strategy toward the wolves in the interests of God’s work. No one against whom this strategy is used is unrighteously hurt because of it, whereas the “sheep” or those interests that deserve to be protected are safeguarded. God does not oblige us to show the stupidity of sheep and play into the hands of our fighting enemy. We should meet the seed of the Serpent, the “offspring of vipers,” with the cautiousness of serpents. Foreseeing danger, we should cover ourselves against the wolves that prey upon Jehovah’s flock. “Oppressive wolves will enter in among you and will not treat the flock with tenderness, . . . Therefore keep awake,” says Paul. (Acts 20:28-31, NW) “A prudent man seeth the evil, and hideth himself.”—Prov. 22:3, AS.
38 It is proper to cover over our arrangements for the work that God commands us to do. If the wolfish foes draw wrong conclusions from our maneuvers to outwit them, no harm has been done to them by the harmless sheep, innocent in their motives as doves. The action is not out of a liar’s hatred. “He that hideth hatred is of lying lips; and he that uttereth a slander is a fool. A lying tongue hateth those whom it hath wounded.”—Prov. 10:18;26:28, AS.
39 We cannot condemn as a liar and deceiver the witness of Jehovah that was about to cross the border line back into Nazi Germany and who took Bible literature with her at the risk of her freedom. She put the literature in the baby carriage at the feet of her baby and covered it over with unwashed baby diapers. When the Nazi officer inspected her carriage, dug down into it and got his hand in touch with the wet, dirty diapers, he quickly withdrew his hand in disgust. He let her cross the border, and with her the literature went in to feed many of the oppressed, brutally treated sheep under Hitler’s regime. Then there is the witness who was working from house to house with a basket of literature. Enemies reported her to the police as a woman with a shirtwaist of a certain color. So around the corner she took out a shirtwaist of another color and made a change, then walked back down the same street and past the officer on her trail, and escaped being identified. There is the brother, too, who was sentenced to the quarries from which no one was known to come out alive. As a musician he was spared the killing quarry work, but he was not mindful of only his own life. At risk of his own privilege as the musical entertainer of the camp officer, he smuggled portions of food to his underfed brothers sentenced to backbreaking quarry work and was able to keep them alive. When at last deliverance came, not only he but those whom he had fed contrary to Nazi regulations emerged with him from the place of doom.
40 To this day the history of Jehovah’s witnesses is ever-new with like cases of their outwitting the wolves by exercising due caution in the face of danger while they are engaged in a good, loving work according to God’s will and command. Such outwitting of oppressors of the sheep is not a failure to “render therefore unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s”; it is a courageous, sensible way of rendering first “unto God the things that are God’s.” (Matt. 22:21, AS) If the wolfish enemy drives Jehovah’s people underground like David who was driven by Saul into the cave of Adullam and other caves, then their underground worship is not a work of deceit and lies because it is not done above ground under greedy eyes of the wolves. (2 Sam. 23:13;1 Sam. 22:1;24:3-10;1 Ki. 18:4, 13) The hypocrisy and deceit lie with the wolves who openly make of God’s house a “cave of robbers.”—Mark 11:15-17, NW.
The Watchtower of 1957, pages 285 and 286, again discusses theocratic war strategy, and we read:
A WITNESS of Jehovah was going from house to house in Eastern Germany when she met a violent opposer. Knowing at once what to expect she changed her red blouse for a green one in the very next hallway. No sooner had she appeared on the street than a Communist officer asked her if she had seen a woman with a red blouse. No, she replied, and went on her way. Did she tell a lie? No, she did not. She was not a liar. Rather, she was using theocratic war strategy, hiding the truth by action and word for the sake of the ministry.
In this she had good Scriptural precedent. Did not Rahab hide the Israelite spies by both action and word? Did not Abraham, Isaac, David and others likewise hide the truth at times when faced with a hostile enemy? They certainly did, and never do we read a word of censure for their doing so. Rather, we read of their being termed exemplary servants of Jehovah. Their actions were in line with Jesus’ wise counsel: “Look! I am sending you forth as sheep amidst wolves; therefore prove yourselves cautious as serpents and yet innocent as doves.”—Matt. 10:16, NW.*
Perhaps some will wonder as to where the line is to be drawn between use of theocratic war strategy in hiding the truth and the telling of lies. First of all, let it be noted that whenever one takes an oath to tell the truth he is obligated to do so. By dedicating himself to do God’s will each Christian has taken a vow or made an oath to do God’s will and to be faithful to him. To this oath he certainly must be true. Likewise, when a Christian is placed on a witness stand he is obligated to speak the truth if he speaks at all. At times he may prefer to refuse to speak and suffer the consequences rather than betray his brothers or the interests of God’s work. And, of course, there is no occasion for use of war strategy when dealing with our Christian brothers. In dealing with them we tell the truth or tactfully remind them that what they seek to know does not concern them.
Lies are untruths told for selfish reasons and which work injury to others. Satan told a lie to Eve that worked great harm to her and all the human race. Ananias and Sapphira told lies for selfish reasons. But hiding the truth, which he is not entitled to know, from an enemy does not harm him, especially when he would use such information to harm others who are innocent.
There is also a discussion of theocratic warfare in The Watchtower of 15. June 1960, page 352:
There is one exception, however, that the Christian must ever bear in mind. As a soldier of Christ he is in theocratic warfare and he must exercise added caution when dealing with God’s foes. Thus the Scriptures show that for the purpose of protecting the interests of God’s cause, it is proper to hide the truth from God’s enemies. A Scriptural example of this is that of Rahab the harlot. She hid the Israelite spies because of her faith in their God Jehovah. This she did both by her actions and by her lips. That she had Jehovah’s approval in doing so is seen from James’ commendation of her faith.—Josh. 2:4, 5; Jas. 2:25.
This would come under the term “war strategy,” as explained in The Watchtower, February 1, 1956, and is in keeping with Jesus’ counsel that when among wolves we must be as “cautious as serpents.” Should circumstances require a Christian to take the witness stand and swear to tell the truth, then, if he speaks at all, he must utter the truth. When faced with the alternative of speaking and betraying his brothers or not speaking and being held in contempt of court, the mature Christian will put the welfare of his brothers ahead of his own, remembering Jesus’ words: “No one has greater love than this, that someone should surrender his [life] in behalf of his friends.”—Matt. 10:16; John 15:13.
Do these articles show that Jehovah’s Witnesses can lie in situations of persecution? The articles show that Witnesses have hidden the truth. This is seen in the case of smuggling literature below unwashed baby diapers, and in the case of witnesses changing their clothes to avoid being identified. Neither of these situations are lies according to the six definitions of lie above. But what about the sister in Eastern Germany who was asked whether she had seen a lady with a red blouse? She hid the truth, but she had not violated one of the six definitions of lie. However, if the officer had asked, “Have you changed and previously you wore a red blouse?” and she had answered “No, then she would have lied.
According to what I have been taught during my 59 years as a Jehovah’s Witness and what I, as an elder, have taught others, the last example, where the woman denied the truth, would not be theocratic warfare. It would have been a lie and a clear violation of God’s laws.
However, there is one clause that is problematic, because it gives a restricted definition of “lie.” The brown text says:
Lies are untruths told for selfish reasons and which work injury to others.
This clause implies that if a Christian is in a situation of persecution or civil unrest, he or she has the right to say something that is not true, if that can save a Christian from being arrested. And this saying, which is not true, cannot be called a lie.
Please consider the following imagined situation when East Germany was communist, and Witnesses were arrested and even tortured:
The authorities were trying to hunt down one of the leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses. During a razzia, he was found and started running as agents followed him. He came to a crossing where a female witness was also present. The agents stopped her and said, “Did the man run in that direction?” She answered: “No, he ran in that direction,” and pointed in the opposite direction of where he ran. Did the female Witness lie? According to the brown text, she did not lie. But this answer is wrong.
A lie is to tell something that is not true, regardless of whether the person has the right to know the truth or not. This means that God’s servants can hide the truth in a situation of persecution; for example, they can refuse to say anything. But if they open their mouths and speak, God’s requirement is that it be true.
The restricted meaning of «lie» also shines through the words in The Watchtower of August 15, 2001, page 20:
4 Sarai could say that she was Abram’s sister because she really was his half sister. (Genesis 20:12) Furthermore, he was not under obligation to divulge information to people who were not entitled to it. (Matthew 7:6) Faithful servants of God in modern times heed the Bible’s command to be honest. (Hebrews 13:18) They would never, for instance, lie under oath in a court of law. When the physical or spiritual lives of their brothers are at stake, such as in times of persecution or civil distress, however, they heed Jesus’ counsel to be “cautious as serpents and yet innocent as doves.”—Matthew 10:16; see The Watchtower, November 1, 1996, page 18, paragraph 19.
The reference here is to the situation in Rwanda, where the Tutsi tribe was guilty og genocide by killing members of the Huttu tribe. The example is that a Tutsi family hid a Huttu family, so they should not be killed. This was not a situation where they lied. But the Tutsi family hid the truth from the authorities, who chased the Huttu tribe to kill them.
The contrast between «would never … lie under oath» but «in times of persecution or civil distress… cautious as serpents and yet innocent as doves,” is a red flag. These words show that in times of persecution and civil distress, Christians have the right to lie, in the sense of saying something that is not true
There is a simple way to remove the read flag by saying: «There can be situations of persecution or civil unrest when Christians will refuse to talk, or even hide the truth. But when a Christian opens his mouth and speaks, either under oath in a court of law, or in any other situation, he must tell the truth. There is no situation where a Christian has the right to say something that is not true, which is the simple definition of a lie.”
It is with sadness I must say that what I have learned as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses and that I have taught others, that there is no situation where a Christian has the right to lie, no longer is valid in this organization.
The Watchtower of August 15, 2001, gives Jehovah’s Witnesses the right to lie in situations with persecution and civil unrest.
THE LEADERS OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES HAVE LIED IN COURT?
Situations in different countries show there is a systematic attempt by the leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses to shift responsibility for various actions away from the Governing Body and the elders and onto individual Witnesses. In order to achieve this, they have told lies.
On the basis of the common sense of justice among people, they would view the shunning and total isolation of disfellowshipped and resigned Witnesses as disgusting. Because of this, there is a cover-up of this situation all over the world. The leaders are simply lying about the way these people are treated, with total isolation from family and friends.
THE LEADER OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT IN THE USA HAS BEEN LYING UNDER OATH
An affidavit is a sworn statement of facts presented to the court. Philip Brumley is the chief counsel in the Legal Department in the USA. He wrote two affidavits, but these included some false information. On April 14, 2023, he was imposed a fine of 154,448 US$ in the US District Court Specifically for the Ninth Circuit of Montana for:
submitting a signed affidavit that demonstrated a reckless disregard for providing an accurate and truthful accounting of facts relevant to determining whether the court had personal jurisdiction over defendant Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania (“WTPA”).
Bromley appealed the fine, and on July 7, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected the appeal.[2]
There is a systematic attempt by the leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses to shift responsibility for various actions away from the Governing Body and the elders and onto individual Witnesses. The words of the fines indicate that this was what Bromley tried to do.
NORWEGIAN LEADERS HAVE BEEN LYING ABOUT THE TREATMENT OF DISFELLOWSHIPPED AND DISASSOCIATED WITNESSES
The Governing Body’s instruction to all Witnesses is that a person who is disfellowshipped or who has resigned (has disassociated himself) must be shunned. This means that the members of the congregation stop any contact with these people, including disfellowshipped and disassociated family members. Family members who live in the same household must have some contact with a disfellowshipped or disassociated member, and there may be some necessary family matters with other disfellowshipped or disassociated members. But apart from these situations, disfellowshipped and disassociated Witnesses must be totally isolated.
To understand the nature of the lying of the leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses, I repeat the definitions of lie in the Watchtower literature:
- Saying something false.
- Speaking to one who is entitled to know the truth
- Speaking with the intent to deceive or injure someone.
- Misrepresenting or distorting facts in order to mislead.
- Omitting key information.
- Exaggerating the truth in order to give a false impression.
On February 17, 2022, Jehovah’s Witnesses sent a letter of appeal to the County Governor regarding their loss of State subsidies. A part of the letter says:
On the other hand, one who voluntarily chooses to reject his spiritual position as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses by formally disassociating himself will be respected for this, and everyone in the congregation has the opportunity to use their personal religious conscience to choose if they will delimitate or completely avoid any contact with this person.
I will now Look at these words in relation to point 17 (1) in chapter 12 of “Shepherd the Flock of God” (2019):
17 (1) Unnecessary Association With Disfellowshipped or Disassociated Individuals: Willfully, continued, unnecessary association with disfellowshipped or disassociated nonrelatives despite repeated counsel would warrant judicial action —Matt. 18:17b: 1 Cor. 5:11, 13; 2 John 10, 11; lvs pp. 39-40.
If a publisher in the congregation is known to have unnecessary association with disfellowshipped or disassociated relatives who are not in the household…He would not be dealt with judicially unless there is persistent spiritual association or he persists in openly criticizing the disfellowshipping decision.
The situation is that Jehovah’s Witnesses have lost their state subsidies and registration as a religious denomination because the County Governor has concluded that the Witnesses violate the law of Religious Denominations. One violation, according to the County Governor, is that Witnesses who resign are shunned and become completely isolated. This means that the Witnesses, in violation of the law, punish Witnesses who resign.
The words “warrant judicial action” mean that a judicial committee of three elders should be formed, and if this committee finds that the Witness is guilty of having contact with disfellowshipped or resigned persons, he will be disfellowshipped. The quotation from the Elders’ book shows that it is not true that each witness will, on the basis of his or her conscience, decide how much contact, or no contact, they will have with disfellowshipped and disassociated persons.
The quotation shows that the members of the Governing Body demand that all contact must be cut with disfellowshipped and disassociated persons, including family, except where some contact is unavoidable. I have been an elder for 56 years, and I confirm that this has been the practice in the congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses.[1]
Let us now look at the words in the appeal of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the light of the definitions of lie.
Definition 2 of “lie” is violated. The County Governor had the right to know the situation among the Witnesses. Point 4 ) is violated, because the letter misrepresents the facts in order to mislead the County Governor, and point 5) is violated because the important information that shunning disassociated persons is a demand from the Governing Body, and that those who do not follow this demand can be disfellowshipped.
It is true that each Witness will decide whether to follow the demands of the Governing Body. But by using these words, the readers will get the impression that there is no demand of shunning disassociated Witnesses, but each Witness decides what to do. This is a lie.
That the lie in the letter was not a slip of the pen is seen in the Norwegian newspaper Dagen of January 18, 2024. It had an article about a couple who had left Jehovah’s Witnesses. One of their reasons for leaving was that persons who had been disfellowshipped and who had resigned were shunned and totally isolated. The Scandinavian branch office was asked to comment on this situation, and Jørgen Pedersen, a member of the branch committee that represents the Governing Body in connection with Norwegian issues, made the following comments:
“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.”
Pedersen used almost the same words as the letter to the County Governor, so it is clear that Pedersen also lied.
Kåre Sæterhaug is also one of the leaders at the Scandinavian branch office in Denmark. In his testimony to the court, he both misled the court and lied to the court. At a District Assembly, a video entitled “Loyally Uphold Jehovah’s Judgments—Shun Unrepentant Wrongdoers.” The message was that shunning disfellowshipped persons meant not answering their phone calls, even if a disfellowshipped daughter calls her mother.
The counsel of the state asked Sæterhaug about this video, with the following exchange
Counsel: What is the message in this video?
Sæterhaug: This video shows a family in a difficult situation, and we see how the family will handle this situation. We see a grown-up daughter who does what she wants, and she is free to do that.
Counsel: But this has a cost?
Sæterhaug: Yes.
Counsel: But parents are asked to cut all contact when a disfellowshipped child moves out?
Sæterhaug: We do not ask anyone to cut all contact.
Counsel: This [the video] was an example of how a family does this.
Sæterhaug: Here, the mother chose not to answer her daughter. But this is not a rule that all Jehovah’s Witnesses must follow.
…
Counsel: Some texts say that if someone socializes with those who have left, they themselves may be disfellowshipped?
Sæterhaug: I have never heard about that. I have been an elder for almost 30 years, and I have never heard about that. Family bonds are not broken.
The blue text is a violation of point 1) This is a direct lie. The very purpose of disfellowshipping is that the person, by being totally isolated, shall repent and come back to the congregation. The mentioned video shows exactly that the slightest contact, such as answering a phone call, can destroy the purpose of the disfellowshipping.
The green text violates point 4), because Sæterhaug distorts the facts in order to mislead. It also violates point 5) because he leaves out important information. As a leader who has been an elder for almost 30 years, he knows that the purpose of this video is not to show how one family does it. But the purpose is to show what all Witnesses should do. This important information is omitted, which misleads the court.
The violet text is probably true. In the congregations where Sæterhaug has served, there may not have been anyone who was disfellowshipped because he or she socialized with one who was disfellowshipped.
But this is a violation of point 2, because the court is entitled to hear the truth. It is also a violation of point 6), because Sæterhaug exaggerates the situation in order to mislead. As a leader, he knows that the Elders’ book teaches that Witnesses can be disfellowshipped for socializing with disfellowshipped ones. This is what the state’s counsel wants Sæterhaug to admit. But instead of doing so, he exaggerates the situation by claiming that it has not happened during the almost 30 years he has been an elder.
CONCLUSION
While lying is always wrong, only malicious lying is a disfellowshipping offense, according to the Elders’ book.
The Hebrew word rākīl can mean “slander” or, in a weaker sense, “gossip.” However, there is no Greek word in the Christian Greek Scriptures with the meaning “malicious lying” or “slander.” Similar to the Hebrew word rākīl, the Greek word dolos (“deceit, cunning”) is an umbrella term that can encompass “malicious lying” or “slander.” It occurs 11 times in the Christian Greek Scriptures, but not in a context of disfellowship. This means that “malicious lying” as a disfellowshipping offense was made up and introduced by the Governing Body without any basis in the Bible.
[1]. See my article, “The demands for shunning in the year 2026.” (https://mybelovedreligion.no/2026/01/25/the-demands-for-shunning-in-the-year-2026/) The last part dealing with The Royal Commission of Australia is particularly important.
