Anna

That is probably a good idea, considering how many times you have actually BEEN right ... in our little verbal tete-a-tetes.
BAZINGA!

They were respectful, but they did weigh in on some topics that have been discussed in this forum. None were written simply to offer compliments.
Of course I DID NOT TELL THEM WHAT JERKS THEY WERE and how they MUST COME AROUND to my way of thinking, seeing that it WAS AND IS INDISPUTABLY RIGHT!!!!

The reason it is not important to know specific identities is that they are but actors in a play (and one of them does not belong on the list at all, IMO). Take one of them out and they are immediately replaced by another.
It is the play we are watching. You don't have to know the names of the actors to follow the play. It can even be a distraction if you do. The roles were laid out long ago in the Book and various actors audition for those roles. It doesn't matter specifically their names.
As much as I like to kick these guys in the teeth (verbally) whenever they rear their filthy heads on a site that purports to be a gathering spot for Witnesses - because if Scripture means anything, it is that fighters against God will not fare well at play's end - that does not mean that I know who is who. I am like a doctor who can only address the symptoms. Even when you take the one off the list who I think should be off, the remaining four are not the same.
What anyone must be alert to is Hebrews 6:4-6: "For as regards those who were once enlightened and who have tasted the heavenly free gift and who have become partakers of holy spirit and who have tasted the fine word of God and powers of the coming system of things, but have fallen away, it is impossible to revive them again to repentance, because they nail the Son of God to the stake again for themselves and expose him to public shame."
I don't presume that I can tell who this verse fits and who it doesn't - especially online.  Is a given opposer in this category or has he merely been influenced by someone in this category? Impossible to tell. All I can do is address symptoms. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be addressed.
Some of them say that they were once hurt. Who am I to try to deny or minimize that? I don't. All I can note is that Revelation 2 and 3 makes clear that congregations of the first century experienced blemishes at least as bad as is claimed by some happens today, yet continued to be congregations. It is Paul saying that in any house there are vessels for uses both honorable and dishonorable. There comes a time when one must suck it up and move on - either stay or leave, but move on.

If the tone has turned comedic, it is because this is at root a farce with a decidedly tragic outcome.
@Jay Witness's friends try to recruit Tom Cruise on their mission to take out the Watchtower. Tom Cruise turns them down, not because the mission is impossible, but because it is ridiculous. He knows they are mostly hacks trying to settle old scores and work off grudges - who should have moved on in life ages ago. So they recruit a young woman, who they knew or should have known, had some instability to her personality, and they manage to secure her cooperation. 'Don't worry. If you or any of your friends are caught or killed,' they tell her, 'if that happens, we will issue a SPECIAL REPORT!' Did they try to set up their poster at her funeral?
So she rifles through the confidential files and is caught. Jay appears flabbergasted that headquarters is not cool with this. They 'interrogate her' for two days - it's all he can do to refrain from saying they waterboarded her. The 'interrogation' was so grueling that she reported for a second day. On the second day, it was discovered that her pilfering was not for some innocuous cause or due to some misunderstanding, but to spirit whatever she found to Jay's friends who have dedicated their lives to working against kingdom interests. Bethel showed her the door. 
"It was reported that when she arrived home, her Jehovah's Witness family and friends treated her terribly," Jay's SPECIAL REPORT tells us, as though they should have been cool with it or even commended her. "Treated her terribly' is a bit vague, isn't it? Look, they probably were not happy with her, but the point is, Jay can't even be bothered to check on that, so eager is he to besmirch his enemies. "It is reported" they "treated her terribly" is enough.
If Jay's friends must assign blame for the young woman's death - beyond the young woman herself - surely it is they themselves they should point to. Recruiting someone once a fine servant of Jehovah, perhaps someone dismayed upon finding all was not Santa and the elves - that they were real people there at Bethel, instead - and using her for their own ends. I'm tired of their hate. And now it has cost the life of a young woman.
Many of these ones have turned to atheism, so they are beyond all question "fighters against God." Some higher up here once told me I should use honey talking to these people, not vinegar. I am not able to do it. "Can't we all get along?" he apparently felt. No. We can't.

I find it so sad that a young sister took her own life (if it's true).  At 24 yo her life was just starting.  I can't help but think of a time when I worked for State government at the Capitol (actually the building behind it).  A woman was so distraught about trying to get some legislation passed (it had something to do with a victim being warned when the perpetrator was released from prison).  Her attempt to find some justice resulted in her going to the top floor in the Capitol bldg and jumping.  She had to splatter herself in the rotunda to get attention to her plight.  I wonder if this young sister felt the same way.  Coupled with the shunning,  life must have seemed overwhelming. I left the Mormon church because I didn't like the organizational style (really their teachings, doctrines drove me out first)  which is so similar to the Watchtowers,  the only difference is that I know the Truth from the Bible which anchors me and gives me hope that Jesus will clean house if there is "something stinking in Denmark".   John Bradshaw (author) stated,  "you're as sick as your secrets".  I believe that.   If DF'g is used to protect secrets and not the congregation,   many will stumble and some will become active haters.   Df'g seems to be our Achilles Heel.   BBC just ran a story the other day about 2 DF'd JWs.  It was outrageously untrue (i.e.: we DF for not attending the Memorial,  leaving an abusive mate, etc) and I noticed it's now posted to Youtube.   Could something designed to protect us be the very thing that persecutes us?

In February of 1974 it was reported that Phyllis Diller had been a Centerfold in the Watchtower magazine, and she commented, if memory serves. "That was the only Centerfold I could make!"
It disturbed me so much that even today I have five naked five females and two naked males running around my home, and lying about in repose on cushions about the house ... if you don't count their collars and rabies tags.
The paws that refresh!

That's the first time I've seen you up voting your own comment 

You must be Allen Smith then

I can up vote my own comments too!! Look!! Maybe I will post a bikini shot of myself next! 

I'm certainly hoping now that it is, considering the current mood on this thread.

I can up vote my own comments too!! Look!! Maybe I will post a bikini shot of myself next! 

And now for the ultimate mia culpa:  I am - gasp! - @The Librarian!!!!
I got tossed out of Bethel decades ago for trying to sneak a red-hot bikini photograph, clad only in horn-rimmed glasses, of myself in the Watchtower centerfold. It almost made it out the door, but then some narrow-minded brothers spotted it.
I'll bet it still hangs upon their dorm walls - the sickos!!
I could have been famous - FAMOUS, I tell you. But now I send photos of myself to apostate rags and even they return it unopened!!

I agree.
Signed,
Allen Smith
[Edited to add: Wow! That was the first time I ever "liked" one of my own posts, and it seems to have accepted it! So it turns out I never had to create all those separate accounts after all (with names I could hardly spell anyway, like Gnosis Pithos, etc.)]

You must be Allen Smith then

You are obviously a FALSE PROPHET!!!
THERE IS ONLY  ONE JAMES THOMAS ROOK!!!    His is a PERSONALITY IMPOSSIBLE TO INVENT!!!!

I'm hoping that the purpose of posting isn't just to expose organizational flaws - it isn't in my case anyway. It's not fair for members of a family just to air dirty laundry. It seems apparent that Jay Witness has a bad agenda and as one poster mentioned in effect, we shouldn't believe everything opposers say.  It is more to get us thinking about our own attitudes toward wrongdoing we may face from within the organization. Some seem to have a culture of "see no evil, hear no evil" as if considering anything "negative" from within is somehow being disloyal or disobedient. "Only draw attention to good things; ignore anything bad/negative so as not to be discouraging." Question: Is that the example Jehovah set for us? Do you get the impression from reading his Word that in his organization (both heavenly and earthly) nothing bad ever happened? What about Jesus? Did he pretend badness/flaws didn't exist both in Jehovah's organization at the time (the Jews) or even among his followers? Or what about later when the Christian congregation was established...? Or what about the information published by the F&DS today? (i.e. chapter 28 of the Proclaimers Book: Testing and Sifting from Within). Can this all be just "airing dirty laundry?"  But yet, some feel if we consider these realities, it's somehow bad. To be clear: No one is suggesting a steady diet of negative experiences, so why consider them at all? To use your illustration: "...when you shine a bright light upon cockroaches...they don't stop being cockroaches...they just go somewhere else." When is that true? Whenever you look the other way and pretend they don't exist. Usually, when people go to the trouble of shining a light on something it is to do something about it. Otherwise, they just continue to exist - as you have correctly mentioned - and even proliferate. So, of course, we have a scriptural system in place whereby we don't just look the other way when we encounter wrongdoing. We report it and even when justice may take years, decades or even lifetimes, we leave matters in Jehovah's hands since we have fulfilled our personal obligation and not take matters into our own hands.I don't see anyone suggesting a mutiny for the organization to change here. Is that the end of the story though? What about in the meantime when we see people being stumbled or deeply troubled by something, THEN what is our obligation? Pretend it doesn't exist? Or apply God's counsel to us at 2 Corinthians 1:3, 4: "Praised by the God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of tender mercies and the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all out trials so that WE MAY BE ABLE TO COMFORT OTHERS IN ANY SORT OF TRIAL WITH THE COMFORT THAT WE RECEIVE FROM GOD." Some of us have seen and experienced things that would assuredly stumble others (I don't even tell elders or Circuit Overseers because the problem is not whether they would even believe me anyway ((they wouldn't)), but rather, what if they DID believe me? (I wouldn't go around blabbing about this stuff anyway). They would possibly be stumbled - even though they may THINK they have "seen everything." Some of these things are WAY outside the box. Things people wouldn't even think would exist or call to mind as a possibility. That is why those specifics are not being mentioned here. The fact is, none of these things as bad as they may be should stumble anyone - they haven't stumbled us and we have survived. But often what makes these things (although rare) survivable is the kindness, understanding, validation, acceptance and love of those who really have been there. Who can understand and help one make sense of things they thought could never happen because "angels would cull out whatever would stumble anyone." (they misunderstand the import of that verse in Matthew and so have unrealistic expectations of what should happen.) One of Jehovah's provisions to help us, is the support we get from our brotherhood. They can be a personal lifesaver and comfort that you wouldn't normally get from a magazine or public talk 
 

Not sure why so much time is spent on refuting something based on a questionable premise. It's like arguing whether someone stopped at a red light, when there is no traffic light there to begin with.
The idea for being tormented for all eternity in "hell" presupposes the idea that humans have an immortal soul. Do they? Because if there is no immortal soul, then there is nowhere but the common grave for them to go. (Thats where I usually start anyway when someone brings up this topic). True, some mix "soul" and "spirit" together to come up with some hybrid notion of what a human soul is; or even centuries after the fact invent the unscriptural idea of "resurrection of the body" to answer the thorny question of: "If a person (soul) never really dies, why doe the Bible refer to a resurrection - why would we even need one?
So I think a pertinent question worth asking is: Does the Bible teach that humans have a conscious immortal soul that survives the body after death that automatically floats to heaven or hell - thus making any form of torment even possible? Or does it teach that when you die, that's it - unless you are resurrected back to life?

Yes, I was about to go straight to the word PAROUSIA as the next term to discuss, and to me this is an easy one. But it is so ingrained as the basis for related teachings that I will save it for later. So, instead:
GENTILE TIMES
The NWT and WT now refer to this term as "Appointed Times of the Nations." based on Luke 21:24. Comparing the KJV and the NWT, the verse read as follows:
Luke 21:24 King James Version (KJV)
24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
NWT (Luke 21:24) 24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled.
This discussion probably won't deal so much with Daniel 4 directly, however, there are numerous Biblical problems with using a type/antitype fulfillment that uses a wicked, pagan, Gentile king Nebuchadnezzar and has him stand in for the Jewish Messianic kingdom under Jesus Christ. The beast-like humiliation of Nebuchadnezzar as a lesson for his haughtiness lasts for "seven times" until he is restored to his throne. That moment when he is restored after seven times is supposed to represent how Jesus restored the Messianic kingdom by sitting back down on the throne after seven times. Of course, the beast-like humiliation of a pagan Gentile king as a lesson for haughtiness makes no sense when applied to Jesus' Messianic kingdom. 
But the 1874 chronology that included a 40 year harvest ending in 1914 had failed. For a while the emphasis shifted to a 40 year harvest from 1878 to 1918, but that was not to last either. The Watch Tower Society finally dropped every vestige of the 1874 chronology and went back to this secondary method of reaching the date 1914. They simply noticed that if you work backwards and count 2,520 years from 1914 you will reach 606 BC, so this date 606 became the new date for the fall of the Jewish Messianic kingdom. It didn't matter that there was absolutely ZERO evidence for Jerusalem being destroyed in that year, but it appeared to be only about 20 years off, so that was considered close enough. It had already been one of the evidences that Barbour had used prior to Russell, although both of them considered other evidence to be better. In 1876, Russell had used Leviticus as the primary scripture for claiming the Gentiles would chastise the Jews for seven times, and he tied the mention of 7 times in Daniel 4 as a support of the scripture in Leviticus:
(Leviticus 26:28) . . .and I myself will have to chastise you seven times for your sins. . .
Later it was noticed that this verse in Leviticus wasn't really about seven periods of time, so the WTS now pinned everything on Daniel 4 (without Leviticus) and it became the new primary support for 1914. We simply said that the 7 times means 7 years, and that 7 years are made up of 2,520 "prophetic" days using 360 days to a year, and 2,520 "prophetic" days must  be thought of as 2,520 solar years (of 365.25 days each). We then say Nebuchadnezzar represented the Messianic kingdom. And, of course, we also needed to start a pseudo-chronology that pretended it was possible to move Jerusalem's destruction by Nebuchadnezzar back 20 years from where all the evidence pointed, so that 2,520 years would land on 1914.
The WTS once claimed that there were about 10 different threads of evidence that all pointed to 1914, and all but one of these came through the date 1874 and added 40 years. The date 1914 now hangs by only this one single thread now based solely on a dream about Nebuchadnezzar's 7 time periods of insanity.
------------
The above is worded truthfully, but clearly in a way that makes it seem unlikely to have been correct. But I'm not trying to say it is impossible. This is just an exercise to see if we have assigned the most likely meaning to it. So is there any way to check ourselves against other scriptures and see if we picked the most likely time period?
Turns out there are at least two scriptures to help here.
One is the verse itself. Note that Luke 21:24 says that they "WILL FALL by the edge of the sword and Jerusalem WILL BE TRAMPLED on by the nations UNTIL the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled."
Note that this action of Jerusalem falling by the edge of the sword is is in the future, and it is directly connected to the trampling that is also placed in the future. We know from history that Jerusalem fell by the edge of the sword in 70 CE, and that Jerusalem was therefore and thereby trampled on by the nations.
The Watch Tower publications have a different view of this scripture. It is understood by the WTS to mean that Jerusalem will continue to be trampled on by the nations from 676 years prior to 70 CE and for another 1844 years after 70 (until 1914). But, if that was true --and important-- why didn't Jesus use the proper tense. Both Aramaic and koine Greek have tenses that cover ongoing action as opposed to simple future action.
Discussions of specific language and tense cannot be definitive, however. There may always be more than one way to read something, and our only goal here is to find evidence for what is likely.
There is another verse however that gives us an indication of an actual time period to attach to these "appointed times of the nations."
When Jesus said "and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled" it would have been nice if he replaced those "times" with an actual amount of time. That would surely get us on the right track. In other words what if Jesus had said
: "the nations, they will trample on Jerusalem until seven times are fulfilled."
or since "seven times" are the same as "seven years" and therefore 2,520 days, we would even accept:
"the nations, they will trample on Jerusalem, the holy city, until 2,520 days are fulfilled"
Or since 2520 days is the same as 84 months of 30 days each, we would accept:
"the nations, they will trample on the holy city for 84 months."
Well, as most of already know, Jesus actually did say something like that when he gave the Revelation to John, and this should clear up why we attach a length of "seven times" to the "times of the nations." In Revelation 11:2, Jesus says:

(Revelation 11:2) . . .the nations, and they will trample the holy city underfoot for 42 months.
Imagine the joy that the Watchtower Society must have felt when it was discovered that Jesus himself had attached a time period to the Gentile Times, and thus cleared up any question about the whether or not it was "likely" that the Gentile Times were actually 84 months long as the Watchtower claims! (84 x 30 = 2520)
In fact, this scripture was the basis for so many Bible chronologists attaching a length of 42 months, or 1,260 days to the Gentile Times. Many of those commentators, especially the ones in the 19th century, therefore attached a period of 1,260 years to the Gentile Times. This included John Aquila Brown, about whom the Watch Tower publications said the following:
*** jv chap. 10 p. 134 Growing in Accurate Knowledge of the Truth ***
As early as 1823, John A. Brown, whose work was published in London, England, calculated the “seven times” of Daniel chapter 4 to be 2,520 years in length. But he did not clearly discern the date with which the prophetic time period began or when it would end. He did, however, connect these “seven times” with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24. In 1844, E. B. Elliott, a British clergyman, drew attention to 1914 as a possible date for the end of the “seven times” of Daniel, but he also set out an alternate view that pointed to the time of the French Revolution. Robert Seeley, of London, in 1849, handled the matter in a similar manner. At least by 1870, a publication edited by Joseph Seiss and associates and printed in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was setting out calculations that pointed to 1914 as a significant date, even though the reasoning it contained was based on chronology that C. T. Russell later rejected.
These statements contain some misleading and false ideas buried within them. For example, John Aquila Brown did not clearly discern the date with which the prophetic time period began or when it ended. Did Russell clearly discern the beginning and end dates of the period? Russell vacillated between 606 and 607 and finally decided it must be 606 for the beginning --- even though he was about 20 years off from the evidence. Russell vacillated between 1914 and 1915 for the end date, then even indicated that he was willing to dismiss the whole chronology as potentially laughable for a time, and finally came back to 1914 and 1915 after he saw the Great War begin in 1914.
The Proclaimer's book also says that "He [Brown] did, however, connect these "seven times" with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24."
That statement is absolutely false. Brown always denied any connection between the "seven times" of Daniel with the "Gentile Times" of Luke 21:24. And that's at least partially based on the fact that he knew that Revelation 11:2 had already attached a different time period to the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24.
There are a lot of other funny or ironic claims and ideas to look into from this section of the book. This happens whenever someone tries to present a partially cleaned up history of their own chronology beliefs that already failed in the past.
Even the very definition given to the term "Gentile Times" failed in 1914. And that's the main point of what this discussion is looking for. It was the very meaning that the Watch Tower publications had given to the term Gentile Times that was tied to all the expectations that 1914 and 1915 would bring. All 100% of those expectations failed, and therefore the definition given to term "Gentile Times" must also be considered unlikely.

QUICK REVIEW
So, we have these six words or terms from Matthew 24 (Mark 13 & Luke 21) for which we are trying to evaluate whether we have chosen a more likely meaning of the term, or a less likely meaning in order to arrive at the INVISIBLE PAROUSIA doctrine. It might even be possible to trace how some of the terms were apparently forced into their special meaning after the decision was made to declare that the PAROUSIA had indeed already begun.
BACKGROUND
Most of the persons who set dates for the visible return of Christ in the 19th century just stopped setting them as soon as a date didn't pan out. But some had invested so much time and effort into it that this was apparently impossible. Hundreds of thousands paid close attention to the 1843 date set initially by William Miller. When it failed another 1843 date was set, then an 1844 date, and Miller quit setting dates. (Russell would later claim that this showed that Miller was one of the 'foolish virgins whose lamp ran out of oil,' because Miller had given up on setting dates.)
But others who had invested their life and reputation on it waited right up to the last day of 1844. Then, of course, new "adjustments" were discovered that put Jesus return in the 1850's, then the 1860's. But by now there were only tens of thousands paying attention. The typical thing to do was to show your faith by focusing on the very next date, but N H Barbour, after some study and decisions in 1859, decided to skip all those expectations for the mid-1860's and go straight to his 1873 date. (He did not settle on 1874 until 1873 failed.) 
This means that when the 1860's dates failed, Barbour was already set to gain a following for the 1873 date. Less people were setting dates, there were less to choose from that were still based on the Millerite foundation. (Miller himself had mentioned the possibility of the 1870's date, half a century earlier.) When it failed in 1873, Barbour had spent as much of his life as Miller had on these dates. He changed it to 1874, and when that failed he was truly depressed. One of his contributors, B W Keith, went back to some teachings that had been promoted in the 1820's about a two-stage parousia. The first stage would be invisible, and Benjamin Wilson who also believed in a two-stage parousia had published the "Diaglott" as an aid to supporting this idea. (Later the Watch Tower Society--Russell--bought the rights to reprint Benjamin Wilson's Diaglott so that most available copies today have the Watch Tower's name in them.)
Barbour credited Keith with the two-stage idea in his tract ("magazine") and it got Barbour back on track. Barbour spoke about possibly picking up an extra 5,000 of the Second Adventists each month as new subscribers. He fully expected at least 20,000 of the current number of Second Adventists to subscribe. In 1877, Barbour convinced Russell of the urgency of this chronology, because just 3.5 years after the presence had begun, they expected Christ's bride to be changed and to have gone up to heaven in 1878 while "lesser" Christians awaited heaven at a later date. So the Russells sold off most of the assets of their largest company so that Barbour could distribute his tracts and booklets more widely.
When 1878 failed, subscribers dropped, and trouble also broke out between Barbour and Russell. Barbour blamed it on disagreements with Russell about money. Russell blamed it on a doctrinal disagreement. (Russell had "crazy" views about the ransom that are no longer considered valid, and Barbour had his own "crazy" view.)
By mid-1879 Russell had convinced three major contributors to Barbour to come over to his own new magazine. Russell also sent out an offer to all the Barbour subscribers to switch over to the Watch Tower. And it was also timed to pick up the current subscribers of a Second Adventist magazine from California as that magazine was just running out of money and discontinuing. So Russell printed up 8,000 copies of the first July 1879 issue. In 1879, there was still an urgency again for the next major date, because Russell expected the Bride of Christ to be changed in October 1881. (3.5 years plus 3.5 years from October 1874.) Lesser Christians would remain on earth until around 1914, when the Harvest would be complete.
Because of the failure of 1881, the number of subscribers remained low. (8,000 had been an overestimate.) But the book series, Divine Plan of the Ages (1886), The Time is at Hand (1889), and Thy Kingdom Come (1891), were extremely popular, "proving" the 1874 chronology with charts containing pyramids and diagrams, and pointing to great expectations between then and up to 1914.
Everything was invested into this idea of a two-stage parousia that started invisibly in 1874 and would manifest itself most visibly in the years just prior to 1914 (later adjusted to the year and months just following 1914).
----------------
Most people here are probably already generally aware of this background information, but it is difficult to understand why parts of the 1874 chronology lasted nearly 70 years -- until 1943/1944 without this background. (My father remembers believing in 1874, but says they were mostly calling it 1878 just before he was baptized.) It also can help explain why it was easy to just transfer the explanation of Matthew 24 from an 1874 chronology over to a 1914 chronology when that became necessary. It still remained a "two-stage Parousia" in every case.
Will pick up on another one of the terms in the next post.

Let's see - get up, kiss wife, shower, shave, eat breakfast, pick a fight with JTR - what has he posted lately?

I have to agree with you there. Just the other day a sister brought up the subject of the convention and the talk about protecting our children. She is now the third person who absolutely did not think the counsel could apply to anyone being a threat in the congregation. It didn't even cross her mind. Those very few who are aware of this problem, and those who know about the Australia Royal Commission's findings, know exactly why this particular program was included at the convention. It was a response to the problem. However, not many are actually aware of that. I have yet to see a candid admission that we do have this problem among our ranks.
That is the scary part and has been suggested by many an opposer or ex-jw. I do not think much of the public is aware of this problem, as I have yet to meet someone in the ministry who brings it up. However this could change. I think that if this becomes a problem in the ministry, and brothers start reporting it, the GB might do something about it. In the mean time, have you perhaps thought of writing a letter to them, similar in content of what you wrote here? It's possible that if they receive many letters complaining about the lack of transparency regarding this issue it might hurry things along.
P.S. We had hospitality lat month and the brother was telling us about one of his Bible studies, who left the catholic faith because of pedophilia. I thought, oh no, what's he going to do when he finds out we have a similar problem! I know one sister who left the truth because she said she left the Catholics because of this.....

I was trying to say similar, but I think you have expressed it better. 2 Corinthians 1:4 applies here. But those who need comfort won't get it if everyone pretends it doesn't exist - and it really doesn't for most people. Who in the congregation would even believe you, or even want to? The answer is: nobody - unless they have seen and been through it themselves. Fortunately for me, I knew very strong and zealous brothers of many years who shared their experiences with me which was of great encouragement because as you correctly stated it provided "relief I wasn't going crazy."  But they wouldn't go talking about these things just to anybody in the congregation. It's too outside the realm of experience for most. We are encouraged to overlook the "imperfections" of others, which is scripturally loving and appropriate. But what we are alluding to is much more than some garden variety imperfection. These are often disfellowshipping offences and other forms of badness. 
I wouldn't think everyone reading this would believe/agree with this thread. But for those of us who have had to come to terms with some pretty hairy stuff, your expressions above ring true - spot on in fact. 

So true. It's hard to imagine what kind of "spirituality" can live alongside certain kinds of sin and certain kinds of personalities.
Most people go into the various Bethel branches, at about age 19 and 20, rather naively, and usually just a few short years after their baptism and with an average of more than a year of pioneering.  The statistics favored those who were 'raised in the truth' rather than recent converts. One of the first things we were told, jokingly by Brother Couch and Brother Sydlik in the "welcome speech' is that Bethelites were divided into two groups, "Newbies" and "BAs" (those with a "Bad Attitude). Then we were reminded that this wasn't a joke by Bethelites who had already been there a year or two. The direct implication was that it didn't take long before we would all become jaded.
I went in on the cusp of a changeover from a 4-year commitment to just a 1-year commitment. Those who were serving out the last year or so of a 4-year commitment were supposed to be the worst BAs (although with the changeover, there was no stigma to a 2 or 3 year Bethelite leaving early, as there had been previously). If you went home early prior to that, it was considered the same as a dishonorable discharge from the army. And worse than that, there had just been a dismissal of 50 or more (all at one time) who had been accused of homosexuality. It was right after that that the 1-year commitment was offered, but no one wanted to leave early in the midst of that, for fear of what the congregation back home might think.
On the first day I got to Bethel, my temporary roommate stole a couple hundred dollars from me, as he was just going back home after 4 years. On my last day of Bethel, I discovered that my storage locker, unused for several years, had been broken into and my valuables had been stolen. I never thought to check my storage locker even though Brother Knorr made at least a weekly announcement of Bethelites dismissed for theft over a period of several months.
But all this was very easy to ignore, by just putting your nose to the grindstone and staying busy. As TTH reminds us, it's dirt among diamonds. I found diamonds by the dozen, and would have never focused on the dirt. And of course every diamond itself has imperfections, too. I could not have asked for better assignments at Bethel. I didn't deserve any of them, and I loved it every single day. Even those dark days of 1980 that seemed surreal, didn't change my resolve to continue to just try to be the kind of person who was like those whom I liked to be around. 
As I got a little older I realized that part of helping others stay grounded is to stop keeping everything to myself, and just admit the faults we've lived through. And I think that we can help others even by admitting the specifics (up to a point). The reason is that others who have gone through something unexpected might never guess that others have gone through something similar. It might give them a bit of relief that they are not going crazy or being singled out for mistreatment or just to know that others really can sympathize.
There is always an element of concern over the fact that some are stumbled by dirty laundry, but that's why I've mentioned before that a semi-anonymous discussion forum (for me) is a much better choice than trying to sympathize in the congregation setting. Many of those who are hurt by mistreatment from those they trusted have clearly turned to discussion forums like this one. (Actually, I saw several of that sort on a bigger discussion forum and was terrified for them that they were being eaten alive by a a lot of unruly ex-JWs, proud to call themselves "apostates.")
Rather than fight the noise on that larger forum, I ran across this one, and think, so far, that it has a fair balance, and that even ex-JW and non-JW "opposing" voices are fairly good at self-moderating here. Someday, this forum will probably no longer meet the same standards it meets now and I'll either go back to silence, or go looking around for another outlet. Many won't agree, but I think that sharing openly and honestly is a loving thing to do for those who might be looking for a sympathetic or empathetic ear. That goes for those concerned about issues of justice and issues of doctrine and healthful teaching. I think this is why the Bible reveals the flaws, even of people at the highest levels of responsibility. (Noah, Moses, Jephthah, Saul, David, Solomon, . . . Paul, Peter, James, and John).
I'm sure some are annoyed that not everyone here spends 100% of their time encouraging loyalty to all the long-standing traditions, and bureaucratic processes. Some apparently only want to encourage complete obedience to any and all suggestions from the Governing Body and apparently think anything less is some kind of apostasy. We have congregations for that kind of encouragement. We have meetings where we specifically study the current thinking of the Governing Body and support it through prepared questions and answers and reading of published material. The congregation is no place for open questioning of current doctrines and procedures.
Well put! 

My XFriend, an Elder, Pioneer and well liked in the Congregation showed this attitude to me. As a Health Counselor and Bible Student for over 60 years I tried my best to see his wrong attitudes. I saved his life once unknowingly. Yet, as you see many will manifest more so in this time of the end. Sadly, he left Jehovah was expelled. Knew the Truth over 24 years yet his attitude towards those in authority was very wrong for he said he "knew to much." Who is perfect? Yet, Jehovah is using imperfect men to fulfill his will and purpose. We live for Jehovah or we die for Jehovah. Many will come and go especially now so close to the end. Hear news? Disregard it if not Up building as we KNOW this may get worse. Let Jehovah expose those wicked as he did this man. As Christ is the Head of the Congregation we need not worry but let go, have patience and matters will be discovered and dealt with. Trust in Jehovah the God of Tender Mercies and Christ the Exemplar of our faith. Times will get worse, take your stand now! Yes, it was very hard for me with this ExFriend and ExElder. 
Jehovah rewards the faithful. If they repent and turn back Jehovah will wait. If not read the rest of 2 Peter 2. My favorite Moto is; "Have no fear, Jehovah is near." May you have Peace and Blessings from Jehovah! 
 
The Second of Peter 2:1-3, 8-22.
2 However, there also came to be false prophets among the people, as there will also be false teachers among you.These will quietly bring in destructive sects, and they will even disown the owner who bought them, bringing speedy destruction upon themselves. 2  Furthermore, many will follow their brazen conduct, and because of them the way of the truth will be spoken of abusively.     3 Also, they will greedily exploit you with counterfeit words. But their judgment, decided long ago, is not moving slowly, and their destruction is not sleeping."
 
 8 for day after day that righteous man was tormenting his righteous soul over the lawless deeds that he saw and heard while dwelling among them. 9 So, then, Jehovah knows how to rescue people of godly devotion out of trial, but to reserve unrighteous people to be destroyed on the day of judgment, 10 especially those who seek to defile the flesh of others and who despise authority. Daring and self-willed, they are not afraid to speak abusively of glorious ones, 11 whereas angels, although they are greater in strength and power, do not bring against them an accusation in abusive terms, out of respect for Jehovah. 12 But these men, like unreasoning animals that act on instinct and are born to be caught and destroyed, speak abusively about things of which they are ignorant. They will suffer destruction brought on by their own destructive course, 13  suffering harm as their reward for their own harmful course. They consider it pleasurable to indulge in luxurious living, even in the daytime. They are spots and blemishes who revel in their deceptive teachings while feasting together with you. 14 Their eyes are full of adultery and are unable to desist from sin, and they entice unstable ones.They have a heart trained in greed. They are accursed children. 15  Abandoning the straight path, they have been led astray. They have followed the path of Baʹlaam the son of Beʹor, who loved the reward of wrongdoing, 16  but was reproved for his own violation of what was right. A voiceless beast of burden speaking with a human voice hindered the prophet’s mad course. 17 These are waterless springs and mists driven by a violent storm, and the blackest darkness has been reserved for them.18 They make high-sounding statements that are empty. By appealing to the desires of the flesh and with acts of brazen conduct, they entice people who have just escaped from those who live in error. 19 While they are promising them freedom, they themselves are slaves of corruption; for if anyone is overcome by someone, he is his slave. 20 Certainly if after escaping from the defilements of the world by an accurate knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they get involved again with these very things and are overcome, their final state has become worse for them than the first. 21 It would have been better for them not to have accurately known the path of righteousness than after knowing it to turn away from the holy commandment they had received. 22 What the true proverb says has happened to them: “The dog has returned to its own vomit, and the sow that was bathed to rolling in the mire.”
How the Voice of Strangers Is Heard Today
Deceptive reasonings. The apostle Paul states: “Do not be carried away with various and strange teachings.” (Hebrews 13:9) What sort of teachings? Since they can ‘carry us away,’ it is clear that Paul refers to teachings that undermine our spiritual balance. Who are voicing such strange teachings? Paul told a group of Christian elders: “From among you yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves.” (Acts 20:30) Indeed, today as in Paul’s day, some individuals who were once part of the Christian congregation now attempt to mislead the sheep by speaking “twistedthings”—half-truths and outright lies. As the apostle Peter puts it, they use “counterfeit words”—words that resemble truth but that are actually as worthless as counterfeit money.—2 Peter 2:3.
Peter further exposes the methods of apostates by stating that they “will quietly bring in destructive sects.” (2 Peter 2:1, 3) Just as the thief in Jesus’ illustration of the sheepfold does not enter “through the door but climbs up some other place,” so apostates approach us in stealthy ways. (Galatians 2:4; Jude 4) What is their aim? Peter adds: “They will exploit you.” Indeed, no matter what apostates may say to the contrary, the real aim of intruders is “to steal and slay and destroy.” (John 10:10) Beware of such strangers!
 

It is one thing to speak frankly and honestly (rather than live in "pretend world") while also contributing to the spiritual welfare of our brothers and sisters. Some of our brothers and sisters in fact do experience some pretty bad stuff and they need validation and understanding. They won't be helped to cope by pretending it doesn't exist or a lack of transparency or even punishing them for exposing things that are clearly bad. On the other hand, it's another thing to have an agenda. An agenda to only tear down and direct people away from Jehovah's organization. That paints with too wide a brush and denies all the good that is done and can yet be done.
One conspicuous omission I see from all these cowardly nay-sayers, sniping from behind the safety of a computer screen, is: What are you offering that is better? What religion are you in that is so much better? Let's examine your beliefs publicly and see if it stands the same level of scrutiny you hold us to. While we are obedient to Christ's command to preach the good news world wide, what are you offering? Let me guess: Bingo, bake sales and bazaars...?