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.
Courtroom K31, where the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ representatives are on the left, and Norway’s representatives facing them on the right.
Published By: Miss Usato, Last Updated: February 7th, 2025
Individuals who are disfellowshipped lose both spiritual and social fellowship with the congregation. – Kåre Sæterhaug
Oslo, Norway—This is the fifth day of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ appeal against the state of Norway. The remaining witnesses today are mostly former Jehovah’s Witnesses, detailing their experiences with disfellowshipping and shunning. First, though, is Kåre Sæterhaug, starting the morning’s proceedings by being questioned by the State. Following him is Hilde Langvann, CEO of Hjelpekilden, a charity that helps people coming out of high control groups. Professor Rolf Furuli also gives evidence based on his 60 years as an elder in Jehovah’s Witnesses.
We do not urge anyone to cut off all contact – Sæterhaug
Sæterhaug, a board member of Jehovah’s Witnesses, is up first this morning to continue his testimony. He finished being questioned by Jehovah’s Witnesses yesterday and is being cross-examined by the State of Norway today. His testimony discusses many of the Organizations’ practices, one being how Jehovah’s Witnesses have adjusted their terminology and practice regarding the exclusion of members over the past few decades.
Initially, members who broke with the congregation were said to be “expelled” (early 2000s). This later changed to “excluded” and now “removed from the congregation”—all terms describing the same disciplinary action.
All the publications, including “Keep Yourselves in God’s Love,” are written in clear, everyday language and are based on the Bible. The book has been mentioned frequently by the state as a reference. Although the teachings are sometimes interpreted with a legalistic perspective, He swears the core principle is that everything is rooted in biblical guidelines.
According to his testimony, disfellowshipped individuals (particularly apostates who actively oppose or try to persuade others away from the faith) lose both spiritual and social fellowship with the congregation. State asked “Regarding contact with persons who have been removed from the congregation – what does this adjustment entail?”
“Now we can also do more to reach out a helping hand. For example, a mother and a father might call and say, ‘We have been thinking about you. You are welcome at the meeting.’”
“But what about the apostates – will someone fall into the ‘fallen away’ category if they join another religious community?” “No, not necessarily. A ‘fallen’ person is someone who continually tries to persuade others.” stated Sæterhaug.
He also said that contact may continue within family households, as personal relationships are ultimately a matter of individual conscience. Sætherhaug explains that there is a difference between an “inactive” member and someone who consciously withdraws from the faith. In practice, those who withdraw are treated the same way as those who have been formally disfellowshipped. The increased responsibility placed on parents is a significant aspect of the recent adjustments. Parents and elders are expected to guide minors in understanding and living by biblical principles. If a minor persists in behavior that contradicts these teachings, even after receiving help, they may be removed from the congregation—a situation that, while rare, has occurred.
The adjustments also allow for careful outreach to those who were removed (for example, a family member reaching out to say, “We’ve been thinking of you)” while emphasizing that the congregation should not maintain spiritual or social fellowship with disfellowshipped individuals. Decisions about personal association are left to the individual family’s conscience rather than enforced uniformly.
“There are clear guidelines for unbaptized publishers regarding associations and behaviors (such as avoiding “bad company” that might encourage negative habits).” Additionally, members in positions of responsibility (like elders) are expected to set a good example, which includes limiting association with those who have been disfellowshipped.
The removed disfellowshipping video is brought up
In his final comments under cross-examination, Sætherhaug notes that the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses decides what is published. For instance, a disfellowshipping video. State continued their questions -“When was the exclusion video removed from JW.org?”
“I dare not say – but it was about a year ago.” “Do you know why it was removed?” “No, I do not know.”
“What do you think is the message of this video?” “Well, it depicts a difficult situation for a family, and we see how that family chooses to handle it. We see an adult daughter who does exactly as she wants – and she is free to do so.” “Yes, but at a cost?” “Yes.” “But are parents urged to cut off contact with excluded persons who move away?”
“We do not urge anyone to cut off all contact. This was merely an example of how one family handled it. In that case, the mother chose not to respond to her daughter. But this is not a rule that all Jehovah’s Witnesses must follow.”
Cross-Examination- Ryssal asks Sætherhaug about donations and how they are used. Sætherhaug says that Jehovah’s Witnesses have no fixed income. It all comes from donations and contributions, and all those who contribute in practical ways are unpaid. When asked where the money goes when it leaves Norway, he talks about “extensive humanitarian aid,” which involves distributing publications and bibles, and that the printing of these materials costs money, so the money is for helping cover that cost.
When asked by the judge if the exclusion practice is the same if one is removed or resigns, he confirms that it is the same and that the amount of contact is reduced. The judge noted that this contradicted what Professor Besier said yesterday, and Sætherhaug could only but agree, “Yes, I don’t think he was aware of the latest revision. But we stand firmly by the Bible’s teachings” to shun.
We had a survey and we discovered that 50% had suicidal thoughts from the sunning practice. – Ms. Langvann
Ms. Langvann’s testimony centers on the experiences of those who reach out to Hjelpkilden (“Source of Help”) for support, revealing the profound emotional and social impact of exclusion from the Jehovah’s Witnesses community. State spilled questions over her about the faith. Do Jehovah’s Witnesses isolate themselves in this?
“In general, everyone is faced with existential questions – and especially Jehovah’s Witnesses often do not have a family to lean on.”
She said individuals ranging in age from teenagers to pensioners (with many being young people) seek help from Hjelpkilden due to loneliness, a need for a social network, and a need for someone to talk to when their lives feel completely upended. State asked “What unites these people?”
Langvann responded, “They are seeking a network and feel vulnerable because they have lost their previous network. They experience loneliness.”
Many describe a profound loss—stemming both from being forcibly removed (kicked out) or choosing to leave—and the pain of losing their established support system. This loss is compounded by the fact that many Jehovah’s Witnesses lack family support, making the effects of exclusion even more acute. Testimonies include painful everyday situations, such as meeting estranged family members in public where greetings are avoided, or receiving requests from relatives asking to reconnect despite deep-seated hurt. This constant reminder of lost connections creates lasting emotional scars. Not only do former members suffer, but even current adherents express fear of the consequences of leaving, worried about the possibility of losing family ties. This pervasive atmosphere of exclusion is so severe that a survey mentioned in the testimony found that 50% of those affected had experienced suicidal thoughts—a significantly higher rate than what is typically seen in other groups facing social exclusion.
Ms. Langvann emphasizes her strong confidence in the truthfulness of these experiences, underscoring that while some people contact Hjelpekilden because they are considering leaving the community, others are reaching out while still remaining in it, all grappling with the pain of a disrupted social network.
Under cross-examination, Ms. Langvann stated that she was baptized into Jehovah’s Witnesses and explained that her departure was more about her supportive role—since she was married to a baptized member—than an outright exit. She confirmed that she has not had any personal contact with Jehovah’s Witnesses since leaving, although she does maintain contact with a few individuals experienced in other religious communities.
Additionally, she reiterated her earlier observation from the district court that, while many minors are in contact (often through intermediaries like health nurses or other health professionals), her overall stance on the matter remains unchanged.
Jehovah’s Witnesses are expected to believe what is written in the Watchtower, even if they don’t understand it. . – Dr. Furuli
Dr Furuli was next to testify. He also testified for the Norway Trial last year. Furfuli is a Norwegian linguist and retired university lecturer. He was a member of Jehovah’s Witnesses and an elder with the group from the early 1960s to 2020. He was expelled for criticizing the leadership, but he remains a firm believer in the faith.
Rolf Furuli testified that he was a Jehovah’s Witness for 59 years and served as an elder from 1963 until 2020. Despite his long service—including roles as an elder, teacher and hospital liaison committee member—he was disfellowshipped for criticizing the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Nonetheless, he regards himself as a believing Witness, even though the organization no longer accepts him.
Furuli explained that Jehovah’s Witnesses treat their literature—particularly The Watchtower and the Elders’ book—as authoritative. While these texts do not hold the same status as the Bible, members are expected to accept their teachings without question, even if the explanations seem complex or illogical. He emphasized that the literature is intentionally written in simple, “black and white” language for children and adults, leaving no room for personal interpretation.
According to Furuli, the elders’ book sets out 48 grounds for disfellowshipping (with only 11 directly supported by the Bible and the remainder established by the governing body). These grounds include “clear moral transgressions and actions” such as disagreeing with the governing body, maintaining contact with those who have been excluded, engaging in intimate interactions, and even, more recently, dissent regarding the organization’s stance on vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic.
He noted that removal is not immediate; a member must first repent and demonstrate change to the satisfaction of the elders. However, once the decision is made, the governing body mandates total isolation of the disfellowshipped person from the congregation, permitting only unavoidable contacts (e.g., for work or in very limited family situations).
Furuli argued that the practice of isolation is uniformly enforced across congregations and that any notion that individual discretion determines the level of contact is incorrect. In his view, suggestions that members may choose their own level of association contradict the clearly stated requirements in the literature. He also clarified that those who voluntarily withdraw are treated in the same way as those who are disfellowshipped. For example, accepting blood or working in a military-related job can be seen as acts of withdrawal, leading to similar isolation measures.
He explained that even if a disfellowshipped person lives in the same household, they are not permitted to join in spiritual activities or family gatherings with other members. Furthermore, he mentioned that the teachings about disfellowshipping are ingrained in the literature and become evident to members shortly after baptism. Furuli touched on the process of baptism and maturity—highlighting that early baptism is encouraged (typically between ages 15 and 19), and that even minors can be subject to judicial procedures if they commit serious sins, which can result in public reprimands and social isolation due to concerns over “bad association.”
Under cross-examination by Jehovah’s Witnesses, he confirmed that he has published two books and runs a website on related topics. Furuli explained that he was disfellowshipped from the congregation because of religious disagreements—specifically after he criticized specific issues by sending his book to the governing body. Furuli stated “A little while ago, Jørgen Pedersen commented that it was up to each individual’s conscience. This is not true. It is an outright lie. If Jehovah’s Witnesses had practiced what Jørgen Pedersen described, that person would have been excluded.”
Furuli acknowledged that being disfellowshipped for disagreements is common. During his long tenure as an elder (from 1963 to 2020), he adhered strictly to the disfellowshipping arrangements, although in his congregation, very few members were actually disfellowshipped.
When asked about children, Furuli noted that while he himself does not have children, his family does, which enables him to comment on matters involving contacts with children. He also agreed that the branch office provides guidance and confirmed that prospective members undergo a Bible study before baptism. Regarding the study material—specifically a book titled “What the Bible Can Teach Us?” that outlines procedures for serious sin—he could not recall if it mentioned exclusion, but he noted that it is reviewed before baptism.
Furuli reiterated his strong criticism of the exclusion (disfellowshipping) system, stating that he is opposed to it “to the highest degree.
Former Jehovah’s Witnesses supporting each other and the witnesses in court today.
Bredesen testified about her upbringing as a Jehovah’s Witness, sharing that she was born into the faith with her mother as a devout member (living with her mother and stepfather).
As a child, Merete attended two meetings a week and was expected to be well-prepared for them. She did not have many outside friends because her mother discouraged association with “bad company.” Even before baptism, she served as an unbaptized publisher, preaching door-to-door.
Bredesen was baptized at age 14—a typical age for baptism at the time. Her decision to get baptized was influenced by her desire for her mother’s attention and care, as their relationship was very conditional on her active participation in the congregation.
Before her baptism, she was already aware of the practice of disfellowshipping. She recalled being taught by her mother. State asked: “What did you know about exclusion before you were baptized? “I knew about it and was told that I should turn away and not say hello.” “Do you have any experience of this?” “Yes, I remember my mum saying that an excluded person in our church was taken by Satan.”
Bredesen revealed that she had never truly been a believer and decided at 16 that she wanted to leave the congregation. When she expressed her wish to her mother, she was met with a threat—being locked out if she left. With the help of a friend and her father, she left home, although her mother later packed up all her things and forbade contact with her siblings and even friends.
At age 19, Bredesen was disfellowshipped. She described the process as involving writing a letter (with help from her husband). She recalled the painful moment when her older sister chastised her for choosing disfellowshipping, highlighting the permanent break in contact that followed. Since then, she has had no contact with the church and only minimal, sporadic contact with her mother—once when she reached out after having children. Bredesen expressed that without her father’s intervention, she might have been trapped within the congregation or, worse, might not be here today. Although she acknowledged that being kicked out of one’s home is not common, her experience was intensified by her mother’s strict adherence to the faith.
Maria Stenhaug, also a former Jehovah’s Witness, went into her Judicial Committee when she was active in the faith, being born and raised in it. With high emotions, she brought up the elders investigating her life while probing sexual questions. Her husband, who was also a Witness, was not nice to her, and she went to the elders for support. Instead, they ensured she knew she could not date or remarry. After having four judicial committees with elders on the matter, Stenhaug was disfellowshipped. She left her husband and eventually started going to college. After being away for a while, she realized how terrible the faith had treated her and never looked back. Today, she is completely shunned from her family, who are still Jehovah’s Witnesses. She attended her sister’s wedding, but her parents didn’t even approach her.
A representative from the Norwegian Directorate for Children, Youth, and Family Affairs (Bufdir) provided a detailed testimony on the impact of negative social control on children, particularly in religious communities such as Jehovah’s Witnesses. Vega explained that negative social control is not just about strict rules but about a system that prevents a child from making independent choices or discovering their identity.
“Negative social control is about pressuring, coercing, or even threatening someone in ways that prevent them from making their own choices,” she explained. “We see it in different forms—sometimes subtle, like going along with an expectation just because everyone else does, and sometimes severe, where a child’s development is completely stifled.”
She detailed how this control is mapped in assessments:
“Does the child get to participate in activities outside of school? Are they allowed to have friends from different backgrounds? Are they encouraged to develop independently, or do they suppress their own wishes to avoid conflict at home? We also look at the consequences children face when they do not comply,” she added. “Are they reprimanded? Are they isolated? What punishments have they received before?”
“There are two common reactions,” she noted. “Some children completely submit—they obey the rules, they avoid conflict. But the cost is their independence. These children grow up with little trust in their own decision-making. They doubt themselves and struggle to act on their own wishes.”
Others, she explained, rebel. “These children push back against the restrictions, but that often leads to serious conflict within the family. They want to live their own lives, but in doing so, they create chaos at home. Many of them end up leading a double life—one identity for their family, another for the outside world.”
It is frustrating to sit and listen to what I believe is obfuscation. There is so much that is not said, – Lasse Strømkvist, former elder who was Interviewed
Former Jehovah’s Witness elder Lasse Strømkvist was Interview for DAGEN magazine, and has has exposed a chilling reality: members of the organization are conditioned to withhold or distort the truth—even in court—if it serves to protect their religious community. “This is something that is not talked about loudly. It is a subculture in Jehovah’s Witnesses.”
November 15, 2004, was mentioned in the former witnesses’ testimonies today, where it openly states that while Witnesses should not commit perjury, they are not obligated to disclose complete information to those who may “harm Jehovah’s people.” This stance is justified by biblical references where figures such as Abraham, Isaac, Rahab, and even Jesus refrained from telling the whole truth. “Do not give what is holy to dogs, nor throw your pearls before swine.” (Matthew 7:6, cited in The Watchtower, Nov. 15, 2004)
In essence, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe they are at war—not physically, but spiritually. The May 1, 1957, Watchtower describes it as “theocratic warfare, commanded by God,” where Witnesses are likened to “sheep among wolves.” In this battle, deception is acceptable if it protects the organization. “They must at all times be very careful not to reveal any information to the enemy that he could use to hinder the preaching work.” (The Watchtower, May 1, 1957)
This means that when Jehovah’s Witnesses appear in court, they may not feel bound by secular laws that demand full transparency. Instead, their primary allegiance is to the organization and its leadership. Strømkvist explained to DAGEN: “Protecting the organization from things that put them in a bad light, which can prevent the recruitment of new members, is above everything—even the Religious Communities Act.”
This doctrine has alarming implications. If Jehovah’s Witnesses believe they are engaged in “spiritual warfare” with the legal system, can their testimonies in court be trusted? Can justice be served when an organization conditions its members to withhold inconvenient truths?
Jehovah’s Witnesses spokesman Jørgen Pedersen has denied these allegations to DAGEN, stating: “Jehovah’s Witnesses are known throughout the world for encouraging all church members to behave ‘honestly in all things.’” (Jørgen Pedersen, in a Dagen Interview) However, this carefully worded response does not directly refute the doctrine of theocratic warfare. Instead, it presents an idealized version of Jehovah’s Witnesses while ignoring the organization’s own literature that explicitly endorses strategic deception.
Jehovah’s Witnesses lawyer, Anders S. Ryssdal, also interviewed by DAGEN insists that all witnesses in the case will testify truthfully: “All persons who testify in a Norwegian court case are obliged to tell the whole and complete truth.” (Anders S. Ryssdal, Dagen Interview)
But does this obligation hold weight when Jehovah’s Witnesses are taught that their highest loyalty is to God’s organization, not secular authorities? The question remains: Can Jehovah’s Witnesses be trusted to testify truthfully in court when their own literature justifies deception?
Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that disfellowshipping is a biblical practice meant to maintain the congregation’s “spiritual purity.” But the testimonies heard today from former elders, Governing Body insiders, and ex-members tell a very different story. We’ve been waiting for these testimonies because after hearing active Jehovah’s Witnesses testimonies, the truth needed to come out soon for the public to understand. Their words expose disfellowshipping for what it truly is: a weapon of psychological control designed to isolate, punish, and force people into submission.
This isn’t about spiritual discipline. It’s about breaking people down emotionally until they have no choice but to come crawling back. Furuli did a good job describing the policy with chilling clarity. The organization deliberately cuts off every form of support—friends, family, even employment opportunities in some cases—to leave disfellowshipped individuals with nowhere else to turn.
The official Jehovah’s Witness literature makes this crystal clear: “We do not have any spiritual or social fellowship with excluded persons.” (Keep Yourselves in God’s Love, p. 207)
This is not just a religious consequence; it is total social exile. The secret elder’s manual, Shepherd the Flock of God, reinforces this policy with strict instructions: “Apart from unavoidable contact, such as work, something very special in the family, such as writing a will, total isolation is required.” (Shepherd the Flock of God, Chapter 12)
Despite these explicit policies, Jehovah’s Witness representatives continue to mislead the public. Today, we heard the claim that disfellowshipping is “a personal choice” and that members can decide whether or not to associate with an expelled person. But Furuli, who lived within the organization for decades, refutes this outright:
In reality, any Jehovah’s Witness who refuses to enforce shunning risks being disfellowshipped themselves. It is not a suggestion. It is an enforced rule.
So, what does all of this tell us?
The testimonies given today prove beyond any doubt that Jehovah’s Witnesses do not practice disfellowshipping as an act of love or spiritual discipline. Instead, it is a system of control designed to maintain absolute obedience.
This is not about scripture. This is about power.
Jehovah’s Witnesses do not have a choice when it comes to shunning. Those who leave are erased. Those who stay live under the constant threat of expulsion. This is not faith—it is coercion. This is not spiritual discipline; this is psychological warfare. It is a system of fear disguised as religion.
The Appeal will continue on February 10th with more Former Witnesses testifying.
Elders’ Book: Download a Copy in your language
JW Publication: Keep Yourselves in God’s Love
JW Publication: What Can the Bible Teach Us?
Furuli’s Website: My Beloved Religion
DAGEN February 7th, 2025: Was Kicked out at 16, now is testifying against Jehovah’s Witnesses
DAGEN February 7th, 2025: Claims Jehovah’s Witnesses are authorised to lie in Court
Office of the Attorney General, representing the State of Norway
Glittertind AS Law Firm representing Jehovah’s Witnesses
Reporter
Translator
Analysis
