Since doing some reading about propaganda and techniques of persuasion/manipulation, I have been more attuned to
      the subtle (and not so subtle) methods employed by the Society's writers to persuade and convince readers.
      Misquotations and historical revisions have been discussed at some length on this board (e.g., the Bible Students were
      'looking forward' to Christ's heavenly enthronement in 1914, etc.). But I believe more commonly employed by the
      Society is a simple form of verbal legerdemain … a kind of contextual 'slight-of-hand,' if you will. Let me illustrate
      (watch closely) …

      In the October 1, 1999, Watchtower article "For Everything There Is an Appointed Time", paragraph four reads:
           4On the other hand, if we fail to understand fully certain Bible texts or explanations provided in Watch Tower
           publications, do we have reason to become impatient? Awaiting Jehovah's appointed time to clarify matters is
           the course of wisdom. "For the Sovereign Lord Jehovah will not do a thing unless he has revealed his
           confidential matter to his servants the prophets." (Amos 3:7) What a marvelous promise! But we must realize
           that Jehovah reveals his confidential matters at the time he deems advisable. For that purpose God has
           authorized a "faithful and discreet slave" to provide his people with "their [spiritual] food at the proper time."
           (Matthew 24:45) There is, therefore, no reason for us to become overly concerned, or even agitated, that
           certain matters are not fully explained. Rather, we can be confident that if we patiently wait on Jehovah, he will
           provide, through the faithful slave, what is needed "at the proper time."

      There! Did you see it? Or was it too fast for you. Watch, I'll do it again … (simply reread the above paragraph)

      Now, did you see it this time? No, no, it wasn't the nearly unnoticeable transfer of blame to the reader for lack of clear
      explanations. But that's part of the misdirection, yes. By wording the expression "if we fail to understand," any
      responsibility on the slave's part is, of course, hidden from view. But such a simple misdirection is not the real trick of
      this performance. Not even close.

      And no, it's not the subtle insinuation that the "faithful and discreet slave" class is somehow "the prophets" referred to
      by Amos 3:7. (Though this is a good trick, considering that the Society disclaims--occasionally at least--any
      responsibility to measure up to the requirements of a true prophet.)

      All right, I'll admit it's a tough one to catch: the misdirection is good, and it's done by an accomplished performer, one
      with lots of practice. So let's take it apart step by step …

      First, note the context, the background against which the trick is performed: Matthew 24:45-47 (vss 48-51 merely
      supplement this context):
           "Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their
           food at the proper time? Happy is that slave if his master on arriving finds him doing so. Truly I say to you, He
           will appoint him over all his belongings."

      Now, ask yourself a question: The backdrop is one of judgment … but judgment of whom? Of the domestics? Of
      course not. But of the slave himself, of course. It is not an assessment of the faithfulness of the domestics to await some
      'appropriate time' for their needs to be met, but an assessment of the slave who was assigned to regularly dispense the
      daily needs of the household. The Master did not leave the household ill prepared. The slave was left with adequate
      supplies; his only responsibility was to see that those supplies were distributed 'at the appropriate time', i.e. as needed,
      to those working within the household (or perhaps at fixed times, as in the case of meals).

      So the referent of the parable is the faithfulness (or absence of it) of the slave in providing regularly (i.e., 'at the
      appropriate time') for those domestics toward whom he is to minister. Would the slave be found at the Master's arrival
      to have fed the household regularly, faithfully at the time they would reasonably expect to be fed … or would he be
      found to have been negligent in discharging this responsibility? The slave could hardly be faithful by telling the
      domestics, "I can't feed you yet even though you're hungry and it's mealtime … wait until someone else (God,
      perhaps?) provides some food." Could he tell the Master, upon his arrival, "Well, Master I wasn't able to feed the
      domestics all the time because I couldn't find the food you left"? Or, "Well, Master, the domestics wanted food that
      would nourish them and give them strength, but all I could find was matzos and water"? Of course not. That would be
      to admit he had failed in caring for his assigned responsibility!

      Now do you see what a remarkable trick the Society has performed in paragraph four? They have completely turned
      the parable on its head and made it into a judgment of the domestics rather than of the slave! They have deftly
      switched referents right before our eyes: instead of the slave's responsibility to supply food at the time the domestics
      should expect to receive it, we are focused instead on the domestics' patience or forebearance in awaiting the slave's
      convenience. The expression "at the proper time" has been inverted and taken on a completely different meaning!
      Amazing! And we never even saw their hands moving. That's because they did it with words.

      So, friends, the lesson to be learned is … Always watch closely! Don't follow the misdirection, but keep your eyes on
      the referent. And enjoy the show!

      Cheers!
      Rational