AN ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE THAT FORMED THE BASIS FOR THE NORWEGIAN SUPREME COURT RULING IN THE CASE BETWEEN JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES AND THE STATE

THE TREATMENT OF THOSE WHO RESIGN IS BASED ON AN ORDER FROM THE GOVERNING BODY AND NOT ON THE CONSCIENCE OF INDIVIDUAL WITNESSES

Judge Thomas Chr. Poulsen wrote about the basis for isolating those who have resigned:

(171) Where the negative consequences are inflicted by the remaining members, for example through the loss of social contact, it will, in my view, be relevant to the assessment of undue influence whether this occurs as a result of an order or encouragement from the religious community. Conversely, if the remaining members act solely on the basis of their own convictions, it would be difficult to establish that the religious community is exerting undue pressure against leaving the organization.

Thus, in the case of loss of social contact, the question is not whether the state – directly or indirectly – can require members to maintain contact with former members. The question is whether, and to what extent, the religious community can influence members not to maintain such contact.

There is disagreement regarding the answer to the question of whether it is the religious community that directs members to isolate former members, or whether it is the members’ own choice. The Supreme Court Justice Poulsen wrote:

(171) In my view, the State is correct in asserting that the practice is not merely advisory but appears to be the result of a rule-based directive. This is particularly true because having unnecessary contact with former members could provoke reactions from the religious community and, in extreme cases, could lead to disfellowshipping.

Supreme Court Justice Therese Steen wrote:

(131) Although I assume that members normally follow the religious community’s teaching on the disfellowshipping of former members, Jehovah’s Witnesses accept that members make decisions in accordance with their conscience. This may also influence how individuals choose to interact with disassociated members, especially close family members.

The Supreme Court Justice Poulsen believes that the treatment of resigned members is a rule-based directive from the religious community, while the Supreme Court Justice Steen believes that it is the individual’s conscience that is decisive.

In what follows, I will demonstrate that Jehovah’s Witnesses have attempted to mislead the Supreme Court by claiming that the treatment of disfellowshipped and resigned members is based on the individual Witness’s conscience, when in truth it is based on a directive from the Governing Body.

I will now explain what Jehovah’s Witnesses mean by the term “matter of conscience,” so we can understand what they meant when they used this term or similar terms in court.

I will discuss one example of sexual relations and another example of abstaining from blood, both to show the difference between directives from the Governing Body and matters of conscience, and to show how the members of the Governing Body work when they define what are directives and what ar matters of conscience.

WHAT ARE “MATTERS OF CONSCIENCE”?

The encyclopedia Aid to Bible Understanding, published by the Watchtower Society, discusses the role of conscience and states:

The apostle explained that matters such as eating meat or vegetables, observing certain days as more sacred than others, and even eating meat that had been offered to idols before being put on sale in the marketplaces were matters of conscience.

The point here is that when there is no law in the Christian Greek Scriptures prohibiting something, each individual Christian must decide, based on his or her conscience, whether to do it. There is no law against eating vegetables or meat, even if a part of the animal from which the meat was derived has been offered in sacrifice at an altar to an idol. And there is no law against considering a particular day more important than other days. Therefore, each individual Christian must decide these matters, and no one has the right to criticize their decision.

In the Jehovah’s Witnesses organization today, in addition to the laws found in the Christian Greek Scriptures, one must also follow the laws established by the Governing Body. This means that “matters of conscience,” as the term is defined by the Governing Body, are decisions that each Witness must make in any case where there is no law in the Christian Greek Scriptures or no law enacted by the Governing Body.

The definition of “matters of conscience” given by the members of the Governing Body is decisions in areas or situations where there is no law in the Christian Greek Scriptures or no law established by the Governing Body.

THE PROHIBITION AGAINST ORAL AND ANAL SEX BETWEEN MARRIED COUPLES

A good example of the difference between a requirement made by the members of the Governing Body and a matter of conscience is oral and anal sex. During 27 years, from World War II until 1972, the leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses advised the Witnesses that each couple had to decide how their sexual relations should be based on their consciences.

But then, the members of the Governing Body decided to intervene in the sexual lives of married couples. They made a new law that anal and oral sex were forbidden by married couples, and performing such sexual acts was now a disfellowshipping offense.

I quote from the “Questions From Readers” part of The Watchtower of December 1, 1972, page 734:

Recently in the news was a court decision ruling that oral copulation by adults is no longer punishable by law in a certain state. Would such practice therefore be solely a matter for individual conscience if engaged in by a Christian couple within the marriage arrangement?​—U.S.A.

It is not the purpose of this magazine to discuss all the intimate aspects of marital relations. Nonetheless, practices like those involved in this court case have become quite common and have received considerable publicity. Even young children in certain schools are being informed of these things in sex education courses. We would therefore be remiss as regards our responsibility if we held back Scriptural counsel that could aid sincere Christians in their efforts to follow a course of purity calling forth the Creator’s blessing. Unusual sexual practices were being carried on in the apostle Paul’s day and he did not remain silent about them, as can be seen in reading Romans 1:18-27. We are therefore only following his good example in considering this question here….

It is not our purpose to attempt to draw a precise line as to where what is “natural” ends and what is “unnatural” begins. But we believe that, by meditating on Bible principles, a Christian should at least be able to discern what is grossly unnatural. In other areas, the Christian’s individual conscience will have to guide, and this includes questions regarding caresses and ‘love play’ prior to intercourse. (Compare Proverbs 5:18, 19.) But even here the Christian who wants to produce the fruits of God’s holy spirit will wisely avoid practices that approach, or could easily lead one to fall into, unnatural forms of copulation.

It is certainly not the responsibility of elders or any others in a Christian congregation to search into the private lives of married couples. Nevertheless, if future cases of gross unnatural conduct, such as the practice of oral or anal copulation, are brought to their attention, the elders should act to try to correct the situation before further harm results, as they would do with any other serious wrong. Their concern is, of course, to try to help those who go astray and are ‘caught in the snare of the Devil.’ (2 Tim. 2:26) But if persons willfully show disrespect for Jehovah God’s marital arrangements, then it becomes necessary to remove them from the congregation as dangerous “leaven” that could contaminate others.​—1 Cor. 5:6, 11-13.

Please note the words “a matter for individual conscience” in the question. The background of these words is whether oral sex is right or wrong for a Christian, and whether performing oral sex is something that each Christian can decide, and no one can question his or her decision.

Before The Watchtower of December 1, 1972, was published, performing oral or anal sex was a matter of conscience that each couple had to decide. But from now on, it was no longer a matter of conscience; the members of the Governing Body had now forbidden oral and anal sex.[1]

FULL BLOOD, RED CELLS, WHITE CELLS, PLATELETS, AND PLASMA VERSUS ALBUMIN, IMMUNOGLOBULINS, AND COAGULATION FACTORS

The Governing Body’s laws in connection with blood fractions illustrate the difference between “matters of conscience” and matters decided by the members of the Governing Body.

The decision of the Governing Body is that full blood, red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, and plasma are forbidden, while albumin, immunoglobulins, and coagulation factors are a matter of conscience. The book “Keep Yourselves in God’s Love,” page 78, says.

¹⁰Jehovah’s Witnesses recognize that “abstaining from . . . blood” means not accepting blood transfusions and not donating or storing their own blood for transfusion. Out of respect for God’s law, they also do not accept the four primary components of blood: red cells, white cells, platelets, and plasma.

¹¹ Today, through further processing, these components are often broken down into fractions that are used in a variety of ways. Could a Christian accept such fractions? Does he view them as “blood”? Each one must personally decide on this matter. The same applies to such medical procedures as hemodialysis, hemodilution, and cell salvage involving one’s own blood, provided that it has not been stored.​—See the Appendix article “Blood Fractions and Surgical Procedures.”

The Watchtower Society has a video describing different treatments related to blood. Kingdom Ministry of January 2011, page 2, referred to this video and said:

Since acceptance of some of the treatments featured in the video is a matter of conscience, do not wait until you are faced with an emergency to consider what you will or will not accept.

We understand that the words “personally decide” and “a matter of conscience” refer to the same.

Please note that the prohibition is not stated as a law or a demand, which is often the case with laws. But the book says that Jehovah’s Witnesses do not do that. However, if we look more carefully, we may see the iron fist in the velvet glove in the words, “not donating or storing their own blood for transfusion.” The members of the Governing Body have forbidden the storing of one’s own blood before an operation, as well as accepting red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, and blood plasma. The iron fist is that if a Witness stores his or her own blood for an operation or accepts one of the mentioned blood fractions, he or she may be disfellowshipped.

Illustrating that what is “a matter of conscience” depends on the decision of the members of the Governing Body is the fact that the Governing Body member Gerrit Lösch, in a lecture on JW Broadcasting in April 2026, said that the Governing Body has now allowed storing one’s own blood for an operation. Before April 2026, not storing one’s own blood was a law that could lead to disfellowshipping. After April 2026, storing one’s own blood is “a matter of conscience.”

It is very important to realize that shunning and isolating disfellowshipped Witnesses started in 1952, and in 1985, the members of the Governing Body decided that those who resign must also be shunned and isolated.

But the members of the Governing Body have never said or written that the treatment of disfellowshipped or resigned Witnesses is a matter of conscience, so each one can decide on how little or how much contact he or she will have with disfellowshipped or resigned Witnesses.

From 1952 onward, leaders demanded that disfellowshipped persons be shunned and totally isolated. From 1985, the demand was that persons who had resigned should also be shunned and totally isolated. The Watchtower has never written, and the members of the Governing Body have never said, that each Witness must decide how much or how little contact he or she will have with disfellowshipped and resigned persons. Therefore, this claim by the counsel of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the District Court, the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court was not true.[2]

[1]. In 1974, the new law was expanded: Oral and anal sex could dissolve the marriage and was a disfellowshipping offense. In 1978, The Watchtower said that oral and anal sex could no longer dissolve a marriage, and it was no longer a disfellowshipping offense. How sexual relations between married couples should be performed was now a matter of conscience. In 1983, oral and anal sex between married couples became a disfellowshipping offense again. But it could not dissolve the marriage. In 2026, oral and anal sex between married couples was no longer a disfellowshipping offense.

[2]. A detailed study of what the Watchtower literature has said regarding the treatment of disfellowshipped persons is found in the article, “The demands for shunning disfellowshipped and resigned Jehovah’s Witnesses in the year 2026.” (https://mybelovedreligion.no/2026/01/25/the-demands-for-shunning-in-the-year-2026/)

DELIBERATE ATTEMPTS TO MISLEAD THE DISTRICT COURT, THE COURT OF APPEALS, AND THE SUPREME COURT

Supreme Court Justice Therese Steen and the other Supreme Court justices who concurred with her have overlooked the most fundamental form of evidence. It is abundantly clear that Watchtower literature unequivocally states that Witnesses should not have contact with disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals, except when contact is unavoidable.

But where in Watchtower literature is there anything that overrides this requirement? Where is it written that the treatment of disfellowshipped and disassociated persons is a matter of conscience, and that each individual Witness decides how much or how little contact he or she should have with disfellowshipped and resigned persons? Such statements are not found in the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ literature.

Why did the three Supreme Court justices not see the need to find support in Jehovah’s Witnesses’ literature for their conclusion that the treatment of disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals was based on the individual Witness’s conscience and was not a directive from the organization? The reason why they did not seek this evidence was evidently because the importance of the individual’s conscience was emphasized over and over again in the District Court, the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court by Jehovah’s Witnesses. And the High Court justices believed this.

The repeated assertions that the treatment of disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals was a matter of conscience were deliberate attempts to mislead the District Court, the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court.

I would like to emphasize that I am not accusing Attorney Anders Ryssdal of dishonesty. He obtained the information he presented to the Courts from Jehovah’s Witnesses. Responsibility for the inaccurate information lies with the leadership of Jehovah’s Witnesses, particularly the attorneys in the United States Legal Department.

JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES RESERVE THE RIGHT TO LIE IN CRITICAL SITUATIONS

Around 1995, I served as an expert witness in evidentiary hearings with the gathering of evidence for the Supreme Court in two child custody cases involving Jehovah’s Witnesses. I was in close contact with the Legal Department in the United States, and I received excellent guidance from them. The father’s claim was that if the mother, who was a Witness, were awarded custody of the child, the child would not receive a higher education, since the Witnesses were against it.  I was asked to find young Witnesses who could testify to the contrary. However, it was emphasized that the witnesses had to speak truthfully based on their own experience.

Later, the requirement to speak truthfully has been relaxed. The Watchtower of August 15, 2001, page 20, states:

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 contrast between “never… lie under oath in a court of law” and “in times of persecution or civil distress persecution and internal strife … be cautious as serpents and yet innocent as doves,” shows that lying can be accepted in critical situations. If lying were never to occur under any circumstances, not just in court, this would have had to be clearly stated.

FALSE INFORMATION PROVIDED TO THE COURT 

I noted the following inaccurate statements made by attorney Anders Ryssdal, counsel for Jehovah’s Witnesses, in the District Court:

There is no specific, established practice.

There is nothing in the doctrine that requires one to sever contact with disfellowshipped individuals.

There is no established practice among Jehovah’s Witnesses; rather, each individual’s conscience must determine the extent of contact they wish to have with disfellowshipped persons.

Kåre Sæterhaug is one of the leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Scandinavia, and he testified in the District Court and in the Court of Appeals.

On January 18, 2024, the newspaper Vårt Land reported on Kåre Sæterhaug’s testimony in the District Court. The journalist referred to what Sæterhaug said, and his report shows that Sæterhaug provided false information on several occasions. The different colors of the text correspond to the points below that comment on the lies:

– How contact with disfellowshipped members is handled is up to the individual and the individual family, depending on how they interpret the Bible’s principles. This is what Kåre Sæterhaug, a board member of the Watchtower Society, explained to the court on Thursday…

If members do not comply with the rules, the state believes that this will be met with sanctions and, in the worst case, will have consequences for their own membership… In court, Sæterhaug claims that this is not true….

When asked by the judge whether members could be sanctioned for maintaining contact with disfellowshipped or resigned individuals in their own families, Sæterhaug replied that this was not something the congregation got involved into…

The judge then asked what would happen if a mother continued to maintain the same level of contact with her child, even if the child joined another religious community. “That is a matter for her conscience,” Sæterhaug said. She would not risk being disfellowshipped, said Sæterhaug…

Time and again, Sæterhaug was pressed on whether there is no “correct course of action” and whether there are no consequences for continuing to maintain contact with disfellowshipped family members. Finally, Sæterhaug acknowledged that there could be consequences if one repeatedly defied guidance from the congregation’s elders. However, since “the elders do not act as a police force,” such contact, if it becomes widely known, must also reflect a “rude and disrespectful attitude.” Nevertheless, Sæterhaug assured that “a judicial committee will never be convened for contact that takes place within a family.”

The next witness was former elder Rolf Furuli, who is disfellowshipped for criticizing the denomination’s current leadership. He used blunt language to describe Sæterhaug’s testimony: “To put it bluntly: It’s pure nonsense! It’s not something that individuals decide. Everyone follows what the Governing Body has decided. What they decide is followed to the letter,” said Furuli.

When asked by the judge, Furuli answered in the affirmative that he himself had participated in disfellowshipping. (Emphasis added.)[1]

We can identify the following untrue statements:

• There is no requirement to shun disfellowshipped individuals. However, each individual Witness decides how much or how little contact he or she wishes to have with disfellowshipped members.
• It is not true that those who do not follow the rules face sanctions.
• The congregation (the elders) does not dictate how much contact family members have with disfellowshipped and resigned family members.
• It is up to a mother’s conscience whether she wishes to maintain the same level of contact as before with her disfellowshipped child. If she maintains this contact, she will not be disfellowshipped.
• A judicial committee will never be convened to consider possible disfellowshipping for contact with disfellowshipped individuals that occurs within a family.

Regarding the last point, someone present in the District Court made an audio recording of Sæterhaug’s testimony, which included the following exchanges:

Public Prosecutor: Some texts say that if someone associates with those who have left the congregation, they themselves can be disfellowshipped?

Sæterhaug: I have never heard of that. I’ve been an elder for almost 30 years, and I’ve never heard of that. Family ties are not severed.

What is clear from Sæterhaug’s testimony is that he is systematically trying to demonstrate that it is not true that disfellowshipped and resigned individuals are shunned and isolated. How should we view Sæterdal’s testimony in light of the fact that Jehovah’s Witnesses would never lie under oath in a courtroom? Sæterdal had affirmed “on his honor and conscience” that he would speak the truth, and this is equivalent to an oath.

Sæterdal knows that God hates lies, and I cannot believe that he knowingly and willingly said something he definitely knew was not true. I can think of two reasons why he still stated several untruths. He was programmed to convey that it is up to the individual Witness to decide how much contact he or she should have with disfellowshipped and disassociated persons, and that there is no organizational mandate. Therefore, he distorted the truth to such an extent that his statement became untrue.

As I have shown, it is a matter of conscience when the Governing Body has not enacted a law regarding the situation. The treatment of disfellowshipped and resigned individuals is not a matter of conscience, because there is a requirement to shun and isolate them. However, at the deepest level, everything we do is based on our conscience, including whether we choose to obey a law or not. I can imagine that Sæterdal rationalized that it was up to each individual’s conscience how to treat disfellowshipped and disassociated persons, because everything we do is up to our conscience. But in any case, what he said was false.

Another factor is that Sæterdal was cross-examined, which meant he had to provide quick answers to questions he did not know in advance. Therefore, he would provide answers that he had not thought through in accordance with the message he was programmed to present.

Therefore, my conclusion is that Sæterdal was unaware that he repeatedly stated things that were false, even as he painted a completely untrue picture of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The same is true of Attorney Ryssdal, who obtained his information from Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Other leaders in the Scandinavian branch office may have rationalized in a similar way. But this cannot be the case of the attorneys in the Legal Department in the USA who pulled the strings of the Norwegian court cases. They must have known they led others to give false statements under oath in court.

Philip Brumley is the leader of the Legal Department in the USA. To avoid the Governing Body’s responsibility in a court case, he wrote an affidavit (a written statement confirmed by oath) containing 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 acts 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.

TRUE WITNESSES WITH A FALSE MESSAGE

One way to lie is to present a true message in a context that leads the audience to draw an incorrect conclusion.

This occurred on a large scale in the District Court and the Court of Appeals. Jehovah’s Witnesses’ attorney presented a number of witnesses to demonstrate that it was up to each individual’s conscience to decide how much or how little contact he or she should have with disfellowshipped persons. Some witnesses recounted maintaining contact with family and other Witnesses while disfellowshipped, and others maintained contact with disfellowshipped individuals while being members of the congregation.

I have no doubt that what these witnesses said was true. Yet, these witnesses misled the court. How can this be? The book for elders, “Shepherd the Flock of God” (2019), Chapter 12, paragraph 17, states:

Unnecessary Association With Disfellowshipped or Disassociated Individuals: Willful, continued, unnecessary association with disfellowshipped or disassociated nonrelatives despite repeated counsel would warrant judicial action. – Matthew 18:17b; 1 Cor. 5:11, 13; 2 John 10, 11; Living the Gospel, pp. 39–40.

If a member of the congregation is known to have unnecessary association with disfellowshipped or disassociated relatives who do not live in the household, elders should use the Scriptures to counsel and reason with him. Review with him information from the Remain in God’s Love book,  page 241.  If it is clear that a Christian is violating the spirit of the disfellowshipping decree in this regard and does not respond to counsel, he would not qualify for congregation privileges, which require one to be exemplary. He would not be dealt with judicially unless there is persistent spiritual association or he persists in openly criticizing the disfellowshipping decision.

Here, we find the phrase “unnecessary association.” This refers to any association with disfellowshipped or resigned individuals (disassociated ones) that is not unavoidable. For example, answering the phone when a disfellowshipped relative calls is “unnecessary association.”[2]

What should happen if a congregation member engages in unnecessary association with disfellowshipped or resigned individuals? In that case, two elders will speak with the individual and ask him or her to cease the association. If two elders issue repeated admonitions and the individual continues the association, a judicial committee will be convened, and the individual may be disfellowshipped.

Elders should be a little more lenient if the association involves a family member. If there is an association with a disfellowshipped family member, two elders will also admonish the individual to end the association. If the association continues, the individual will lose his or her privileges in the congregation, such as serving as an elder, a ministerial servant, or a pioneer. However, a judicial committee shall only be convened in the event of continued spiritual association with the disfellowshipped person or criticism of the disfellowshipping.

What can we say about the witnesses that Attorney Ryssdal presented in the District Court and the Court of Appeals in light of the Elders’ book? Several of the witnesses stated that they had been disfellowshipped and reinstated, and that this experience had taught them valuable lessons. These are positive witnesses to the truth.

However, several witnesses stated that they had had extensive contact with disfellowshipped family members, and others stated that Witnesses in the congregation had had contact with them while they were disfellowshipped. What was the attorney’s purpose in presenting these witnesses? His aim was to demonstrate that there is no directive to isolate disfellowshipped and disassociated Witnesses, but that it is the conscience of the individual Witness that determines how much or how little contact he or she wishes to have with disfellowshipped and disassociated members.

Here, however, we see how a true message turns out to be false. All those who reported having had contact with disfellowshipped individuals had violated the Governing Body’s directive against such contact. If the elders had become aware of this contact, they should have spoken with the individuals and asked them to cease contact. If they continued to maintain contact, they would lose their privileges in the congregation, and they could be disfellowshipped.

For example, the elder Trond Haugan stated that he had had frequent contact with his disfellowshipped child. He must have kept this hidden from the other elders. Because if they had found out about it, he would have lost his position as an elder. And if he continued, he risked being disfellowshipped.

All of these individuals, who were bad examples because they had violated the Governing Body’s directive not to have contact with disfellowshipped persons, were presented in the District Court and the Court of Appeal as good examples representative of the Jehovah’s Witnesses organization, thereby proving that the treatment of disfellowshipped persons was a matter of conscience and not a directive. This is the same as misleading the court.

I can well understand that the three Supreme Court justices who voted in favor of Jehovah’s Witnesses were convinced by all these witnesses that the treatment of disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals was a matter of conscience. However, from a professional-legal standpoint, they should have sought written evidence to support this.

From 1952 onward, the leaders demanded that disfellowshipped Witnesses be shunned and completely isolated. From 1985, the requirement was that individuals who had resigned should also be completely avoided and isolated. The Watchtower has never stated, and the members of the Governing Body have never said, that each individual Witness must decide how much or how little contact he or she wishes to have with disfellowshipped and withdrawn persons. Therefore, the claim made by Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Attorney before the District Court, the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court—that the treatment of disfellowshipped and resigned individuals is a matter of conscience—is false.[3]

[1]. The journalist’s words match an audio recording made by someone present in court.

[2]. See the article: “The demand for shunning disfellowshipped and resigned Jehovah’s Witnesses in the year 2026” (https://mybelovedreligion.no/2026/01/25/the-demands-for-shunning-in-the-year-2026/)

[3]. A detailed historical study of what the Watchtower literature has said about the treatment of disfellowshipped and resigned members can be found in the article “The demand for shunning disfellowshipped and resigned Jehovah’s Witnesses in the year 2026” (https://mybelovedreligion.no/2026/01/25/the-demands-for-shunning-in-the-year-2026/)

LEADERS OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES CONFIRM THAT SHUNNING DISFELLOWSHIPPED AND RESIGNED MEMBERS IS A DEMAND FROM THE GOVERNING BODY

In 2015, the Royal Commission of Australia investigated how Jehovah’s Witnesses handled cases of sexual abuse of their members. In addition to extensive investigations into individual cases where members of Jehovah’s Witnesses had been sexually abused, a public hearing was held between July 27 and August 14, 2015. At this hearing, Terrence O’Brien, the leader of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Australia, and Geoffrey Jackson, who was a member of the Governing Body, were interviewed. [1]

The person conducting the interview, Angus Stewart, pointed out that if a woman who had been sexually abused did not feel safe as long as the abuser remained in the congregation and she wanted to leave, she had two options: either she could resign from the congregation and lose her entire family and all her friends who were Jehovah’s Witnesses, or she could remain in the congregation with the abuser, where she did not feel safe.

Both O’Brien and Jackson pointed out that she could take a course of action to avoid losing her entire family and friends. She could quietly leave the congregation without formally resigning.

However, in our context, what is important is that if she formally resigned, she would lose her entire family and all her friends who were Jehovah’s Witnesses. Once she had resigned, the option for her family and friends to contact her as their consciences dictated no longer existed.

Here are the interviews:

Stewart:   Now, the consequence of the scenario that I’ve put to you is that this survivor of abuse, who wishes to leave the organization, is put to a choice, isn’t she: she either stays in the organization or she leaves and, thereby, potentially loses her whole family, or much of it, depending on how many remain in the Witnesses, and her social network?

O’Brien: No, I think there’s that other option that you have missed here, by just ceasing her activity in the congregation –

Stewart:   Well. I am presupposing, Mr O’Brien, that her feeling is sufficiently intense that she wishes to disassociate from the congregation.

O’Brien:  Yes. So, then she would appreciate the implication of that.

Stewart:    Yes. And her friends and family would face the implication, too, that they would have to disassociate from her.

O’Brien:  Yes.

Stewart:    It is an impossible choice, isn’t it? I mean, no-one is it not right, Mr O’Brien — should be put to the choice of remaining in an organization which she feels is protective of her abuser, and losing her family and her social network.

O’Brien:  Well, I can only be guided by what the scriptures say on that.

 

 

Stewart:  Well, the result, then, is that they are faced with the choice between freedom from the organisation on the one hand and having to lose their family and friends and social network on the other?

Jackson:   That’s how you would like to put it, Mr Stewart, but I thought I’m trying to say that there are those, some of whom I have heard of, that just fade away and they are not actively Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Stewart:  And, Mr Jackson, you have put it that they have a choice to leave or not to leave.  For someone who wants to leave, perhaps because they have suffered abuse by someone in the organisation and don’t feel that it has been treated properly or adequately, it’s a very difficult choice, isn’t it, because they must choose ‐‐

Jackson:  I agree, yes.

Stewart:  And it can be personally devastating, because they can lose their whole social network and their families?

Jackson:   That can be the case, yes.

 

Jackson confirms that a resigned or disfellowshipped person will lose her entire family and all her friends. Stewart then asks whether an abused woman who wants to leave the congregation has only two choices: either to lose her family and friends by resigning, or to remain in the congregation against her will. Jackson echoes O’Brien’s statement, saying that she has a third option: “just to disappear.” This means a person can stop associating with Jehovah’s Witnesses and stop attending meetings without telling anyone. In that case, she would not lose her family and friends.

However, Jackson confirms that if a woman who has been abused wishes to leave the congregation, it can be “personally devastating” for her, because she loses her family, her friends, and her entire network.

Terence O’Brien and Geoffrey Jackson confirm that if a person resigns (disassociates), she will lose her entire family and friends. Jehovah’s Witnesses’ claim in the District Court, the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court that the treatment of disfellowshipped members is a matter of conscience has been proven to be false.

 

[1]. See the report from the Royal Commission of Australia:   https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-studies/case-study-29-jehovahs-witnesses

ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF RESIGNING SO SEVERE THAT THEY CONSTITUTE UNDUE PRESSURE AGAINST RESIGNING?

The answer to the question in the headline is simple. There is no doubt that the answer is a resounding Yes. The two interviews above with the two leaders show that anyone who resigns loses their family and friends, who are Jehovah’s Witnesses. This is a compelling reason not to resign. I know several people who no longer share the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses but who do not resign in order to avoid losing their family and friends.

Whether this pressure is of such a nature that it violates the right to freely resign under Article 9 of the ECHR is for the judges to decide, not me.

However, the Supreme Court Justice Therese Steen has pointed out some “mitigating circumstances”:

(40) I note that this book covers the same topics as the 2008 book “Keep Yourselves in God’s Love,” to which the minority refers, among other things. In a number of areas, Remain in God’s Love, published in 2018, is more toned down and less detailed, including with regard to conduct toward former members. When assessing current practice within the religious community, I base my assessment on more recent texts, including the 2018 book, as the County Governor also does in his decisions.

(41) Therefore, members of the religious community are not to associate with former members, whether they have been expelled or have resigned. This also applies to close relatives, unless they belong to the same household. Family ties are not severed, but with regard to family members other than those with whom one lives, contact is permitted only for necessary family matters. It is undisputed that the threshold for such contact is relatively high.

(97) Therefore, a disfellowshipping does not sever family ties. A minor will also normally live in the parents’ home. The family’s normal daily activities can continue, but, following a disfellowshipping, a central aspect of the family’s spiritual—i.e., religious—life and interactions will no longer be accessible to the disfellowshipped minor. At the same time, the doctrine provides guidance on safeguarding the minor’s family life, including emotionally.

(99) In my view, the guidelines for handling a possible disfellowshipping of a minor make the process appear more considerate than before. Nevertheless, it must be recognized that it can be both uncomfortable and humiliating for a child to have to explain the accusations to the congregation’s elders, often with the parents present—especially if the matter concerns matters of an intimate or sensitive nature. Nevertheless, I find that the process itself does not in itself constitute psychological violence under Article 19 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

(127) A former member may still attend Jehovah’s Witnesses meetings. Furthermore, not every instance of contact with former members entails a risk of disfellowship; see Shepherd the Flock of God, 2019, Chapter 12, paragraph 17, which distinguishes between family members and others.

(128) Therefore, disassociation does not result in total social isolation, including from family members.

In general, I would say that the rule introduced in 1952, stipulating that disfellowshipped Witnesses should be shunned and isolated, and the rule introduced in 1985, stipulating that those who have resigned should also be shunned and isolated, still remain in full force. In 2024, some cosmetic changes were made. However, the rule that there should be no contact with disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals, except in unavoidable situations, still applies in 2026.

A detailed historical study of what Jehovah’s Witnesses’ literature says about the treatment of disfellowshipped and resigned Witnesses can be found in the article: “The demand of shunning disfellowshipped and resigned Witnesses in the Year 2026.”[1]

IT IS NOT CORRECT TO SAY THAT “FAMILY TIES ARE NOT SEVERED” BY DISFELLOWSHIPPING OR RESIGNATION

My area of expertise is linguistics and semantics, and from my perspective, I see weaknesses in the way the Supreme Court operates. The Supreme Court justices rely on documents from the District Court and the Court of Appeal, and, in this case, they have had access to Jehovah’s Witnesses’ literature. The weakness is that they rely primarily on written material, which may prevent the Supreme Court justices from understanding the true meaning of key words and expressions.

One particularly important expression is that “family ties are not severed” by disfellowshipping or resignation. The meaning of this expression is not elaborated upon. The term “family ties” is used in the plural, and in what follows, I will demonstrate that multiple family ties are severed through disfellowshipping and resignation.

A search for “family ties” on the internet yielded the following KI result:

Family ties refer to the close, emotional, and/or legal bonds that unite members of a family.

Definition and meaning:

Bonds: Describe relationships characterized by routines, traditions, love, loyalty, and often shared responsibility.

Scope: Includes the relationship between parents and children, siblings, and extended family (relatives).

Characteristics: Family ties can be described as “close” when family members are close to one another.

I think most people would agree with this definition. So, what happens to family ties in the event of disfellowshipping and resignation? The legal ties are not severed. A marriage is not dissolved if one spouse is disfellowshipped or has resigned. And the parents’ responsibility to support a minor child remains. However, most of the other family ties are severed.

In reality, family relationships are turned upside down by disfellowshipping or resignation, with significant consequences for all family members. I will now discuss this consequence.

HOW A CHILD EXPERIENCES EXCOMMUNICATION OR RESIGNATION

For a minor who is developing both physically and mentally, two factors are particularly important: answering the questions, Who am I? Which value do I have? And, to be recognized and accepted by friends and family. Disfellowshipping or resignation will have a very significant negative impact on both of these aspects.

It is important to remember that, for active Jehovah’s Witnesses, their religion is the most important thing in their lives. Most aspects of their daily lives are related to their religion. They attend congregation meetings twice a week. One evening a week, they hold a family study of Bible-based publications. Various family members participate in field service of preaching a couple of times a week, and meals are preceded by prayer. When making decisions about work or education, religion also plays an important role.

Clearly, when a member of such a well-functioning Witness family is disfellowshipped or has resigned from the congregation, it has a dramatic impact on all family members. So, how does a child who is disfellowshipped or who has resigned experience this situation?

In the eyes of congregation members and parents, a disfellowshipped or disassociated child has lost God’s approval. When God’s judgment comes, any disfellowshipped or disassociated person will be put to death without the possibility of a resurrection, as awaits the rest of the family. The child is a “leaven” in the family, someone who has a bad influence on the whole family, someone the siblings need to beware of.

According to the doctrine, someone who has been disfellowshipped is a person who, due to his or her imperfection, has committed serious sins without repenting. Someone who has resigned bears much greater responsibility than someone who has been disfellowshipped, because he or she has deliberately turned their back on God and has rejected God and the one true religion. Parents will treat the disfellowshipped or resigned individual in light of these points of doctrine.

This means that the disfellowshipped or resigned individual is excluded from relationships with other family members, including parents and siblings. When the family conducts the family study, the disfellowshipped child may be allowed to be present. However, he or she is not allowed to say anything. He or she is allowed to attend meetings. However, no one present at a meeting will speak to the disfellowshipped child. Therefore, it is not a pleasant experience for the disfellowshipped child.

A woman who testified in the District Court and the Court of Appeals, who was disfellowshipped as a child, explained that when other Witnesses came to visit her family, she had to go to her room and stay there until the guests had left. She found this very unpleasant. A disfellowshipped child is not allowed to have contact with grandparents, aunts, uncles, or cousins who are Witnesses. Furthermore, none of the disfellowshipped child’s friends will have any contact with the child. The disfellowshipped child will be completely isolated, except for contact with fellow students at school. However, if the child has previously followed the doctrine, the child will have no friends among the students in the class because they are not Witnesses.

In addition to the physical isolation, the child carries a heavy burden. The elders on the judicial committee, and perhaps also the parents, have told the child that he or she is condemned by God and that, when the great tribulation comes, he or she will die without the possibility of a resurrection. The child has no hope for the future.

One important need children have is to feel that their life has a purpose, that they are valuable, and that they have hope for the future. But now, the child is considered filthy, both by God and people. Another important need is to feel recognized and accepted by others. And here, exactly the opposite is happening. Contact with all people, except those with whom the child lives, is severed, and the child is completely isolated. We can only imagine the negative impact this situation has on the child’s psychological development on the path to becoming a well-balanced adult.

The situation for someone who has resigned from the congregation will often be worse than for someone who has been disfellowshipped. The disfellowshipped person can repent of his or her sins and be reinstated in the congregation. However, someone who has resigned has taken a stand. As I showed in the section “Witnesses who resigned are punished,” those who resign are viewed as antichrists, as worse than idolaters, and as far worse than those who are disfellowshipped, because they have deliberately turned their backs on God.

Depending on their parents’ views, those who have resigned may experience the isolation resulting from losing friends and family as an even greater burden than those who are disfellowshipped. The bright side for them is that they have taken a stand against the congregation, and, therefore, it will be natural for them to seek contact with others who are not Witnesses and to make friends among them.

TO BE DISFELLOWSHIPPED OR RESIGN LEAD THE SEVERING OF FAMILY BONDS

It is a shock for parents when a child is disfellowshipped, and undoubtedly an even greater shock when a child resigns from the congregation and thereby deliberately turns his or her back on God. There is no doubt that, in most Jehovah’s Witness homes, the relationship between parents and child undergoes a change. Here, two relationships are pitted against each other. On the one hand, parents will love their children, who are their own flesh and blood. On the other hand, there is their relationship with God and his standards.

As I have already pointed out, the Witnesses’ faith and their religion play a major role in all aspects of their lives. A Witness is willing to sacrifice his or her life rather than break God’s law by receiving a blood transfusion. And a Witness will not accept family members breaking God’s law.

In ancient Israel, if a young person broke God’s law, he was to be stoned. Those who were to cast the first stones were the young person’s parents. The Watchtower magazine has used this example to illustrate how parents should treat their disfellowshipped child. Therefore, parents are programmed to turn against their own children if they break God’s law.

Again, I quote the definition of “family ties.”

Definition and meaning:

Bonds: Describe relationships characterized by routines, traditions, love, loyalty, and often shared responsibility.

Scope: Includes the relationship between parents and children, siblings, and extended family (relatives).

Characteristics: Family ties can be described as “close” when family members are close to one another.

There can be no doubt that when a child is disfellowshipped or resigns, those close family ties are severed. This also applies to the bonds of “routines, traditions, love, loyalty, and often shared responsibility.” The disfellowshipped or resigned child and the parents now live in two different worlds. The child has defiled the values that matter most to the parents, namely their relationship with God. The parents’ love for the child goes a long way. But their love for God extends even further.

The family has now become a completely different place than it was: the closeness between family members is gone. The same is true of the good communication that used to exist— the disfellowshipped or resigned child is not allowed to speak in certain situations. And the family ties between members of the extended family are completely severed, since the disfellowshipped or resigned child is not allowed to have contact with uncles, aunts, cousins, or grandparents.

When the Supreme Court’s ruling states that “family ties are not severed,” it is a truth with qualifications. The legal ties, such as the marriage between a Witness and a disfellowshipped spouse, and the parents’ responsibility to support a child, are not severed. However, in my experience, all other ties between the disfellowshipped or resigned child and the family members are either severed or severely strained.

Various views have been expressed regarding the extent of isolation that the Governing Body requires of those who are disfellowshipped or who have resigned. The section we have just discussed helps us find the answer:

The Governing Body requires total isolation of disfellowshipped and withdrawn individuals, except in situations where contact is unavoidable.

Because the focus in this case has been on children, I have discussed in detail the family ties in a family with one disfellowshipped or resigned child. However, the situation is the same between adults. Because disfellowshipping and resignation are so dire in the eyes of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the close relationship between spouses will also be severely strained. During my 56 years as an elder, I have seen that the relationship between spouses when one has been disfellowshipped has become difficult, often very difficult, for example, in the sexual sphere, and has even ended in divorce.

It is also quite clear that family ties within the extended family are severed between adults when no Witnesses in the family are allowed to have contact with the disfellowshipped or resigned family member. Furthermore, family ties in the form of “routines, traditions, love, loyalty, and often shared responsibility” will also be severed or weakened when extended family members are not allowed to communicate with one another.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court Justice Thomas Chr. Poulsen has posed three fundamental questions that could determine whether Jehovah’s Witnesses infringe upon members’ right to freely resign from the congregation:

• Can the treatment of disfellowshipped members—namely, that they are shunned—be perceived as a punishment?
• Is the treatment of resigned members based on an order or directive from the religious community? Or is the treatment based on the conscience of individual Witnesses, on how they choose to treat resigned members?
• Is the treatment of former members so severe that it can be perceived as undue pressure on members not to leave the organization?

This study has gathered material that answers these questions:

• Subjecting disfellowshipped members to shunning and isolation is a punishment because they are wicked and have abandoned the one true religion.
• The Governing Body requires that disfellowshipped and resigned individuals be shunned and isolated. There is no room for individual Witnesses to use their conscience to decide how much or how little contact they should have with disfellowshipped and resigned members.
• The treatment of disfellowshipped individuals is so severe that it amounts to undue pressure on Witnesses who want to leave the organization. Whether this pressure is so severe as to violate the right to freely resign under Article 9 of the ECHR is not for me to determine.

WHAT IS SO SERIOUS AND SO SHOCKING IS THAT JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES HAVE DELIBERATELY ATTEMPTED TO MISLEAD THE DISTRICT COURT, THE COURT OF APPEALS, AND THE SUPREME COURT REGARDING HOW THEY TREAT DISFELLOWSHIPPED AND RESIGNED INDIVIDUALS.

[1]. https://mybelovedreligion.no/2026/01/25/the-demands-for-shunning-in-the-year-2026/