JEHOVAH’S
WITNESSES
More than 10 years revealing secrets because there is no excuse for secrecy in religion – w1997 June 1; Dan 2:47; Matt 10:26; Mark 4:22; Luke 12:2; Acts 4:19, 20.
JEHOVAH’S
WITNESSES
More than 10 years revealing secrets because there is no excuse for secrecy in religion – w1997 June 1; Dan 2:47; Matt 10:26; Mark 4:22; Luke 12:2; Acts 4:19, 20.
Hege Skaanes Nyhus, department director at the State Administrator outside the Borgarting Courthouse
Published By: Miss Usato, Last Updated: February 4th, 2025
The decisions by the State Administrator are based on the Jehovah’s Witnesses own writings on how to behave. Hege Skaanes Nyhus
Oslo, Norway—On the third day of the trial between Jehovah’s Witnesses and the state in Borgarting Court of Appeal, it was Jehovah’s Witnesses who were allowed to speak. 19 people will testify for the religious community during Wednesday and Thursday. It was clear that the religious community’s lawyers wanted to highlight examples that exclusion from the congregation does not mean social ostracism.
Hege Skaanes Nyhus, department director at the State Administrator, testified that their decision to withdraw funding was based on Jehovah’s Witnesses’ own writings rather than testimonies from former members. She emphasized that the State Administrator does not interfere with religious beliefs but ensures compliance with legal regulations. Jehovah’s Witnesses’ lawyers challenged the state’s reliance on defectors’ accounts and questioned whether the state was pressuring the group to change its doctrine.
Nyhus clarified that while the state does not dictate religious beliefs, religious communities must align with legal standards. She also noted that while there is substantial documentation of practices potentially harming children’s rights, no specific cases have been reported that warrant police or child welfare intervention.
Nyhus confirmed that the case has been handled by people with legal expertise, and not religious expertise.
The Ministry of Children and Family Affairs’ Department of Faith and Beliefs, which handled the appeal against the State Administrator’s decision, has both theologians and religious scholars in its department. This was confirmed by the head of the investigation, Geir Telstø, when he was on the witness stand on Wednesday.
Exclusion is not controversial in Jehovah’s Witnesses. Everyone knows what can lead to it, and relates to it. 50-year-old Jehovah’s Witness woman
Torill Sauerr, A 50-year-old female member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses gave the longest testimony of the day, detailing her life story where she was the first in her family to become a Jehovah’s Witness, how she left the congregation, and how she returned.
Explaining her situation before she withdrew from Jehovah’s Witnesses, she said, ” I received many job offers, good money and prestige. I did not go to meetings and lived a life that was not in line with what I had promised in baptism, the woman explains about the prelude to the withdrawal.”
“It is incredibly sad and undignified that Norway does not consider my religion and my religious community to be equal to 870 others. In our congregation, we have lost some of our security – there have been axe attacks in Arendal, and people have broken into our church,” she continues.
The following explanation of the woman’s situation reveals that she is disassociated. “I was the one who distanced myself from the congregation and stopped coming to meetings. Then I chose to take the consequences myself and withdrew from the congregation in a letter, the woman said, emphasizing that no one had pressured her to take that step.”
In her situation, she believed that it was she who had been responsible for her loss of contact with friends in Jehovah’s Witnesses. It’s not uncommon for people to disassociate from Jehovah’s Witnesses. However, her reasons for leaving had nothing to do with her religious views. Rather, it had all to do with the life she wanted to lead.
“I had become a bad person and did not want contact with friends in the congregation. It was a shame that I sometimes felt. I did not live up to the promises I had made at baptism, while my former friends did what they could to become the best version of themselves.” She explains, “I also had less contact with my family because the spiritual part of life that Jehovah’s Witnesses take up so much time – there can be three meetings per week, family studies at home, and preaching.” She said that it wasn’t just when she left that she lost friends. Also when she first became a member, and then again when she returned to the congregation, she lost almost her entire circle of friends that were not Jehovah’s Witnesses.
She sees the state’s decision as a violation of human rights and curiously uses words very similar to Pederson of the Scandinavian branch when describing the effect on her. “As a citizen, I have always had a sense of pride in living in a country that has placed human rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child at a high level. It is therefore very surprising that Norway takes a line that very few others do.“
There was difficulty understanding concepts developed by Jehovah’s Witnesses. Many questions were asked to help understand the difference between social and spiritual contact, what is necessary and unnecessary contact.
Despite the line of questioning to help understand these key concepts, the responses had the hallmarks of how Jehovah’s Witnesses typically answer questions: vague and indirect.
“We should not have spiritual contact with members who have been expelled voluntarily or involuntarily. Family ties are not broken”, says the woman as if she was reading directly from jw.org.
When the judge asks her about social contact with an expelled person she replies, “I don’t think it is advisable to have a lot of unnecessary contact with those who are excluded.”
When asked what is necessary or unnecessary contact, she says it is up to the individual to assess what that means.
“But I think the practice of exclusion, or ‘timeout’ as I like to call it, is for the best of everyone. For me, it was good that I had time to reflect on how I lived my life. It was also good that other members were not affected by my lifestyle – after all, we are only human.”
It affects our everyday lives. Jehovah’s Witness woman
Two congregation elders take the stand. One had a daughter who returned to the congregation after 14 years, while the other had a sister who had been disfellowshipped and had not returned.
The first elder, serving in a congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses for 40 years explains, “We had social contact with our daughter, although it decreased when she moved out to study. We visited her, and she visited us.”
When asked if he received guidance to limit contact with his daughter, he flatly lies, “No.”
When he was confronted by statements in the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ book, “Keep Yourselves in God’s Love” where it directs readers to avoid a person expelled from the congregation, and that contact with family members who have moved away should be kept to a minimum, he responds, “Where the boundaries are here is a matter of conscience. The practice has also been adjusted a bit over time.”
Another lie to cover the first lie.
He then explains the difference between a former member who keeps their mouth shut and says nothing about their plight and those who speak out and how they are viewed.
“There is a difference between whether a former member actively opposes the congregation and whether the person in question merely withdraws.”
Whether he is aware of it or not, this is an admission that any member or former member that speaks out about the harms caused by the Jehovah’s Witnesses is treated with more contempt, than someone who keeps their mouth shut.
“What does it mean to actively oppose Jehovah’s Witnesses?” asks the state attorney?
“It could be if someone warns against us in the press, online or similar,” he admits.
Jørgen Pedersen, the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ spokesman for Scandinavia was very pleased with how things had gone so far.
The witness list presented to the Appelate Court is not much different to the list presented to the District Court a year ago. When asked by the media if he expects the court to reach a different decision using more or less the same evidence, he replies in the typically vague and indirect manner that we have come to expect from Jehovah’s Witnesses.
“I cannot comment on the strategic aspects, but we initially thought that the District Court’s decision was strange. This is a case that is about human rights, freedom of religion and freedom of expression.”
When asked about what he thought about the state’s argument, he replies, ” It is an established practice for many years. In a number of other countries, it has been confirmed that it does not entail a violation of human rights. We have been upheld in 75 judgments in the Human Rights Court”.
He conveniently forgets to mention that the vast majority of the 75 judgments do not relate to shunning.
About on Nyhus’ Testimony,
By basing the State Administrator’s decision on Jehovah’s Witnesses’ own writings rather than defectors’ accounts, Nyhus ensured that the ruling was grounded in the group’s officially stated policies rather than subjective testimonies. This approach strengthens the legal reasoning behind the decision, making it more difficult to dismiss as biased or anecdotal. Nyhus was careful to clarify that the State Administrator does not interfere with religious beliefs but instead ensures compliance with legal standards. This distinction is important because it upholds the principle of religious freedom while reinforcing the responsibility of religious organizations to follow the law.
She acknowledged that while there is documentation of practices that could harm children’s rights, no specific cases have been reported that warrant police or child welfare intervention. This demonstrates a commitment to due process—recognizing concerns while avoiding overreach. The fact that the appeal process involved theologians and religious scholars suggests that different perspectives were considered. This reinforces the integrity of the investigation and shows that the state was not making uninformed decisions about religious doctrine.
Overall, Nyhus’ testimony reflects a careful, legally sound, and balanced approach that respects religious freedoms while ensuring accountability to national laws.
50-year-old Woman’s Testimony
Despite the woman having disassociated from Jehovah’s Witnesses years previously and has since rejoined, she remains a committed believer. Her testimony reflects the perspective of someone who has accepted Jehovah’s Witnesses’ teachings, including their stance on shunning.
Her framing of disfellowshipping as a “timeout” rather than an enforced social ostracization mirrors the language used by the organization, suggesting a possible influence from Jehovah’s Witnesses’ official rhetoric.
She takes full responsibility for her loss of friendships and family ties, which aligns with the organization’s emphasis on personal accountability rather than acknowledging the communal pressure exerted on members who leave.
She describes losing friends not only when she left Jehovah’s Witnesses but also when she first joined and when she returned. This suggests that Jehovah’s Witnesses’ social structure inherently leads to lost relationships, yet she may not be aware of how her testimony could be viewed by the court.
Her assertion that “family ties are not broken” contradicts well-documented cases of strict shunning, yet she simultaneously admits to losing contact with loved ones but fails to make the connection that it might have had to do with the time-consuming demands of the religion.
Her answers regarding the difference between social and spiritual contact mirror the common Jehovah’s Witnesses’ pattern of being intentionally ambiguous when discussing their practices with outsiders.
When pressed on the meaning of “necessary” vs. “unnecessary” contact, she deflects by saying it’s up to the individual, which avoids acknowledging that members are under strong pressure to limit contact.
Her reference to Norway’s decision as a “violation of human rights” follows Jehovah’s Witnesses’ broader narrative of religious persecution rather than engaging with the specific legal issues at stake.
She left Jehovah’s Witnesses for personal reasons, not due to doctrinal disagreements or experiencing coercion. This means her experience does not fully reflect the reality of those who leave for ideological or ethical reasons and are subsequently shunned.
Congregation Elder’s Testimony
The elder claims that he maintained social contact with his disfellowshipped daughter, though it decreased when she moved out to study. It’s possible that his family did not strictly follow the organization’s guidance and maintained more contact than officially permitted.
When asked if he received guidance to limit contact, he says “No.” However, Jehovah’s Witnesses’ literature explicitly instructs members to minimize contact with disfellowshipped family members who do not live in the same household.
The book Keep Yourselves in God’s Love clearly states that “loyal” family members must cut or minimize unnecessary contact with disfellowshipped relatives. Given that he is a longtime elder, it is unlikely that he is unaware of this directive. His denial appears to contradict documented policy, which suggests he was being evasive or misleading.
When confronted with the actual wording of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ teachings, he shifts to saying the policy is a “matter of conscience.” While some minor aspects of contact may be left to individual discretion, the overall stance of the organization is clear: avoiding disfellowshipped individuals is strongly encouraged and expected. His answer downplays the coercive nature of the policy.
His statement about former members who “actively oppose” Jehovah’s Witnesses being treated differently is a tacit admission that the organization enforces an even harsher form of shunning on those who criticize it publicly.
When pressed, he acknowledges that “warning against” Jehovah’s Witnesses in the media or online qualifies as opposition. This aligns with Jehovah’s Witnesses’ doctrine, which considers criticism of the organization as “apostasy,” one of the most serious offenses, often leading to extreme social exclusion.
The County Governor was questioned about Jehovah’s Witnesses: “We have nothing to do with the practice of religion”
The witness box was used extensively when Jehovah’s Witnesses presented their witnesses
Office of the Attorney General, representing the State of Norway
Glittertind AS Law Firm representing Jehovah’s Witnesses
Reporter
Translator
Analysis