A Thought on DFing: Shafting the Hounders

by Farkel 25 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Farkel

    The WTS has repeatedly stated that one of the main reasons for disfellowshiping is to "keep the Congregation clean." Another reason is to shame the offender into toeing the WT Party Line, although they don't quite put it that way.

    On the other hand, there are numerous examples of Elder hounders hunting down and DFing people who have totally and voluntarily extricated themselves from the "Congregation" and its members for YEARS. Obviously, they aren't bothering the Congregation(s) or active dubs AT ALL, and obviously they aren't interested into being "shamed" in order to get back in.

    One can only conclude that the motives of the Elder hounders are vindictive. The Bible clearly states that the purpose of "not even eating with such a person" applies only to someone who "calls himself a Brother." Anyone who leaves voluntarily and stays away for years is obviously NOT a brother.

    That being the case, DFing not only violates WT "Law", but it is stalking and harassment pure and simple.

    It seems to me that in such a situation there would be punitive legal measures that could be taken against such Elder hounders. I would think that anyone facing this situation should point out what I've just stated to such elders and threaten their asses with a huge lawsuit. Perhaps even criminal charges.

    If I go dog someone whom I haven't had any contact with for years and threaten them when they have done virtually nothing to me personally over that period, that is definitely harassment. DFing them could also be argued as vindictive slander.

    I cannot recall anyone make this argument before. I do recall an older copy of the Flock book saying to leave dubs alone if they have been inactive for three or more years. I don't know what the current policy is, but I DO know elders are still doing what I am talking about.

    What do you think about this?


  • nelly136

    would it have to be a huge lawsuit to do the trick?

    huge is really cool but possibly costly and maybe long and drawn out?

    if its about making individual elders accountable for their actions, then would a simple harrassment order or injunction put a criminal mark on their personal record?

    over here theyre police checking individuals for a growing range of jobs, even a caution from years back can show up on a criminal records check.

    if the borg thought they could get mileage and press out of an elder being victimised by a huge lawsuit they may help with legal stuff,

    if its just a minor issue then they would probably be more backward in coming forward.

  • HappyGuy

    There has to be a legal basis for criminal charges.

    Let's examine the facts.

    1. Elders threaten you with an action that will cause you IMMENSE emotional trauma, the total cutting off of contact with your family and friends.

    2. The action will be announced in public, slandering you and causing you embarrassment at the least and emotional harm at the most.

    3. The elders are actively "investigating" you and accepting gossip and hearsay as "evidence".

    4. The elders say that unless you do what you are told (not their exact words but that is the point) and agree to slavishly obey the WTBTS and all its dictates then you will have the action described in #1 above taken against you.

    Isn't this extortion?

    If you don't do A I will take action B. Where B is illegal? Isn't that extortion?



    I agree with you..

    My SIL was DF after 10 years..

    How frigg`n stupid would you have to be?..

    To hunt someone down you have`nt seen for 10 years..

    To tell them..

    They can`t associate with you anymore..

    .......................... ...OUTLAW

  • HappyGuy



    Elder "Hello Brother Absent, we have come here to tell you that we will not be able to associate with you any more"

    Brother Absent, "But we don't associate"

    Elder "Exactly, that is why we are disfellowshipping you so that we cannot associate"

    Brother Absent, "but I have not spoken to any of you people in ten years"

    Elder, "Exactly why we have to make sure that we don't associate with you"


    Sounds pretty stupid to me.



    I once got called into a JC because of one of my hillarious stunts..LOL!!


    I was`nt going to meetings..

    My punishment..

    I was`nt allowed to answer at the meetings,I was`nt going to..

    True story..Crazy JW`s..

    ............................. ...OUTLAW

  • acolytes

    Hi Farkel

    What do they want? Do they first want the person back? If the responce is negative, well in their mature and christ like understanding of love they disfellowship-

    Anyway its more about them than me anyway. I have noticed many jealouse elders (Of the happy and successful lifes of those that left) and this makes them critical They have unwittingly confronted their own failure.


  • HappyGuy


    What was the hilarious stunt?

  • WTWizard

    The best bet would be getting a police report on the hounder's record. And a nice spot on the NBC News (or the newspaper) that this goes on, so potential recruits will be warned not to join in the first place. It might also look good to judges that otherwise would have awarded children to witless parents in custody cases. The more of these cases that make it to the mainstream newspapers, the more people are going to be wary about joining the cancer. And the more embarrassment they are going to suffer.

  • DT

    I think a legal argument could be made for suing them, although it would likely be an uphill battle. In the U.S. the courts would probably try to throw the case out on the basis of not being able to interfere with internal religious matters. I think a possible solution would be to argue in the beginning that it is not an internal religious matter because the individual already left years ago by not attending meetings and not doing the work that Jehovah's Witnesses are best known for and actually use as the basis for counting their membership.

    If this argument is accepted or at least not rejected immediately, then it could drastically change the situation. There are already precedents that limit what a church can do to nonmembers and former members. The Mormons have already gotten into trouble for trying to punish members after they already left. I think that if a court was actually able to consider the details of a disfellowshipping case, then a lawsuit would have a fair chance of succeeding.

Share this