JWTruth.orgDocumented comparison resource
Search

Shunning and family · Claim record

The organisation's current public position is that removed persons are treated 'with respect', are 'welcome to attend our religious services, where he may be greeted', may request elders' help, and that a removed person's spouse and young children in the same house keep 'normal family affections and dealings'; the FAQ does not address relatives living elsewhere, and applies the 'no greeting' text of 2 John only to those who 'actively try to undermine' the congregation.

Claim ID claim-shunning-faq-current-positionConcerns 18 September 2026Organisation's explanation
Organisation's explanation · 18 September 2026 Verified

The organisation's current public position is that removed persons are treated 'with respect', are 'welcome to attend our religious services, where he may be greeted', may request elders' help, and that a removed person's spouse and young children in the same house keep 'normal family affections and dealings'; the FAQ does not address relatives living elsewhere, and applies the 'no greeting' text of 2 John only to those who 'actively try to undermine' the congregation. jw.org, Frequently Asked Questions, 18 September 2026Supreme Court of Norway (Høyesterett), judgment HR-2026-1009-A (case no. 25-089326SIV-HRET), official English translation published 16 July 2026, 29 April 2026

Show the evidence (2 sources)
Primary JW publication Verified

jw.org, Frequently Asked Questions, “How Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Treat Those Who Used to Belong to Their Religion?”

18 September 2026 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania

“So we do not socialize with someone who has been removed. However, we do not ignore him completely. We treat him with respect. He is welcome to attend our religious services, where he may be greeted by Jehovah’s Witnesses. He may also request spiritual assistance from the elders.”

Current official statement. Also: 'we reach out' to those who 'slowed down or stopped'; 'The elders simply announce to the congregation that the person is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses'; spouse and young children in the same house keep 'normal family affections and dealings'; footnote b on terminology; footnote d applies 2 John 9-11 to those who 'actively try to undermine' the congregation. Says nothing about relatives outside the household. Quotes the High Court of England and Wales (7 June 2019) and former ECtHR judge Pinto de Albuquerque.

Official source

Provenance and verification note

Confidence note. Full page opened at both URLs on 2026-09-19. The old URL https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/shunning/ returns HTTP 301 to this URL (curl -I; server Last-Modified 18 Sep 2026). Earlier titles: 2022 version 'Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Shun Those Who Used to Belong to Their Religion?' is quoted by the Norwegian Supreme Court (para 125); the still-earlier title 'Do You Shun Former Members of Your Religion?' is attested only by discovery sources (unverified).

Corroborated by. src-court-no-2026-0429-supreme-court

Notes. Blocked original: https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/shunning/ (now redirects). web.archive.org and archive.ph blocked in this environment.

Accessed. 19 September 2026 · Source ID. src-jworg-2026-faq-removed-from-the-congregation

Official public record Verified

Supreme Court of Norway (Høyesterett), judgment HR-2026-1009-A (case no. 25-089326SIV-HRET), official English translation published 16 July 2026, “The State (Ministry of Children and Families) v. Jehovah’s Witnesses; European Association of Jehovah’s Witnesses (intervener)”

29 April 2026 · paras 4, 39-45, 94-102, 110-127, 149-152, 227-230 · Norges Høyesterett

“Members of the religious community are thus not to associate with former members, whether disfellowshipped or withdrawn. 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 in necessary family matters. It is undisputed that the threshold for such contact is relatively high.”

3-2 majority (Steen, Arntzen, Hellerslia; Poulsen and Falkanger dissenting) dismissed the State's appeal and declared the refusals of registration and grants invalid; unanimous that infringement of children's rights was not proved; majority: practice 'may entail a clear psychological pressure not to withdraw' (para 123) but not 'improper pressure' under Art. 9 ECHR; dissent: right to withdraw infringed. Costs NOK 2,165,461. Quotes od 2019 p. 148, lvs pp. 39-40, ks 2019 ch. 12 par. 17, w24 Aug p. 24 par. 18, the 2022 jw.org FAQ and a JW brochure 'Jehovah’s Witnesses and Disfellowshipping'.

Official source Scan of original

Provenance and verification note

Confidence note. Official English translation PDF (https://www.domstol.no/globalassets/upload/hret/translated-rulings/2026/hr-2026-1009-a.pdf) downloaded and read; all quoted paragraphs confirmed. Norwegian original: https://www.domstol.no/globalassets/upload/hret/avgjorelser/2026/april/hr-2026-1009-a.pdf

Scan provenance. Supreme Court of Norway, Communication Department translation (legal authenticity remains with the Norwegian text).

Accessed. 19 September 2026 · Source ID. src-court-no-2026-0429-supreme-court

Claim page

A direct link to this claim is https://jwtruth.org/evidence/claim-shunning-faq-current-position/. Every source above opens the original document or the best available copy. If you believe the wording, date or context is wrong, report an error.